Nope because they are legitimate targets that are actively engaged in war against the USA (and also various other nations in Central and South America too, not just the USA), they are already legitimately designated and recognized as terrorists helping an evil foreign State actor, and the order to kill them is legitimate. In essence these men are in Hell and their blood is on their own heads, they shouldn't have served Maduro and the cartels, they should not have ignored America's public warning, they should not have had drugs on their known narco-terrorist vessel, they should not have been in the waters the USA told them not to be in, they should not have the hatred in their hearts for man and God. They did have all those things they should not have done or had, and so they're dead. Basically, trying to suggest that it's a war crime to fight the enemy is not only flirting with seditious conspiracy, but it's just kind of a stupid way to go about it too, it's basically the "sympathy for the Devil" game.
• The Law of War is Conditional: The response fails to apply the critical rule of hors de combat. A person's status as a combatant/terrorist/enemy does not give forces the right to kill them once they are clearly shipwrecked, surrendered, or otherwise incapable of fighting. The law of war is designed to regulate conduct, even toward the worst enemies.
• Imminent Threat is Key: The only way to justify the strike is if the men still posed an immediate, imminent threat. Their past affiliation, political designation, or moral failings are irrelevant to whether they can be lawfully targeted at that specific moment.
• Designation is Not a Blank Check: Being labeled a "narco-terrorist" does not negate the protections afforded by LOAC to individuals who are hors de combat.
• The "Seditious Conspiracy" claim is baseless. Questioning whether a military action complies with international law is a legitimate inquiry in a democratic society, not a conspiracy to overthrow the government.
That perspective is incorrect based on the fundamental principles of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), specifically the Geneva Conventions.
While the men may have been designated 'legitimate targets' and 'narco-terrorists' when they were operating the vessel, that status does not justify targeting them once they are hors de combat (out of combat).
The critical rule here is the prohibition against attacking shipwrecked persons who are incapable of resistance. Once the men were in the water, clinging to a vessel and no longer posing an immediate threat or actively participating in hostilities, they gained protection under international law, regardless of their prior crimes, political affiliations, or moral character. The purpose of LOAC is not to ensure justice or punish past actions, but to limit suffering in war by restricting permissible violence.
If the men were genuinely disarmed, in the water, and posed no immediate threat, ordering a second strike on them would be a direct violation of international law. The guilt of those carrying out the orders would depend on whether the order was so clearly unlawful that a reasonable person should have refused it."
