Donald Trump’s administration has a new “explanation” for a boat strike some have dubbed a war crime, but it doesn’t “survive scrutiny,” according to a legal expert Saturday.
Legal analyst Ryan Goodman over the weekend took apart the Department of Defense’s reasoning for the so-called “double tap” strike that killed survivors clinging to the wreckage of a purported drug transporter.
“With Admiral Bradley’s lawyer speaking to Congress this upcoming week. Threshold question is how ANY of these strikes are legal. On Sept 2 strike: Q is whether they applied standard Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology,” he wrote, linking to a 2012 military document.
He added that, “The Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology goes to the heart of the latest DoD claims about the strike,” before defining the new assertion: “The claim is that the second strike was targeting the (possible) cocaine, not the shipwrecked.”
“I do not see how that could have possibly complied with the Methodology,” the expert added.
Goodman noted that the Methodology states that “the laws of war (LOW) require anticipated ‘noncombatant’ deaths must not be excessive in relation to expected military advantage to be gained (the possible cocaine),” before further adding, “Noncombatants defined to include shipwrecked.”
“In short,” he added, “DoD’s new ‘explanation’ does not survive scrutiny.”
“Even if second strike targeted cocaine, it would be patently illegal and presumably in direct defiance of standard Methodology that DoD applies to planned lethal operations,” he then said. “Did they apply it on Sept 2?”
Dem lawmaker Ted Lieu shared Goodman’s comments, simply adding, “The below thread is excellent. The threshold question is whether there was any legal justification to strike a boat heading AWAY from the US purportedly delivering drugs to Suriname and Europe.”
The post Analyst blows up Trump admin’s new ‘patently illegal’ explanation for controversial move appeared first on Raw Story.
