That’s not even the argument the administration is making. Their argument is that the drugs themselves are the weapon/combatant. So they argue it’s perfectly legal to destroy the drugs and hand wave away the collateral damage of the humans operating the boat. But if the drugs were already destroyed then their entire argument goes out the window for a need for a second strike.
They were non-combatants the entire time.
That’s not even the argument the administration is making. Their argument is that the drugs themselves are the weapon/combatant. So they argue it’s perfectly legal to destroy the drugs and hand wave away the collateral damage of the humans operating the boat. But if the drugs were already destroyed then their entire argument goes out the window for a need for a second strike.
Its stupid, I know.
Oh cool, so the same twisted logic as charging someone’s money for a crime in asset forfeiture.