Accusations of a "heinous" violation of international law have emerged against the United States military, with insiders alleging that force...
    • Muehe@lemmy.ml
      17·
      3 days ago

      I believe the point is that even if you accept the (unproven) premises of the US administration, that there were drugs on the boat and that you can be at war with a cartel, this would still make it illegal, because then it would be a war crime to bomb helpless survivors of the strike. If you don’t accept that it’s a war the strike on the boat would have been illegal in the first place, simple murder. But even under their own premises it’s a war crime.

      • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 days ago

        I understand where you are going with your explanation. But it’s a headline, not a government press release. I know that administration isn’t concerned with the truth, the media should be. Calling it a drug boat with no evidence shows a huge lack of journalists integrity and in a just world someone would be fired for that.

        • Muehe@lemmy.ml
          2·
          3 days ago

          Well if I understand where you were going with your OP and your reply correctly, you want to insinuate pro-Trump bias in the choice of headline? Because if that is the case the content of the article, plus the general accusation that the Trump administration could have acted illegally, seem to point against that. For example this is the last sentence of the first paragraph:

          These operations have resulted in over 80 deaths, sparking intense criticism that the administration is conducting extrajudicial killings—or, as some critics assert, unwarranted murders—without legal justification.

          So based on the article content I would consider the headline to be quoting the Trump administration, which could admittedly have been made clearer by using quotation marks around “Drug Strike” or something.

          • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 days ago

            I am not insinuating a pro Trump bias for this article (I still haven’t bothered to even look at the source long enough to even tell you who it is). I’m pointing out clear misinformation in the headline. In this case yes it would serve the current administration’s purposes nicely. And yes, quotation marks would pretty nearly solve my problem with it.