White House Defends Double-Tap Strike as 'Self-Defense', Despite War Crimes Allegations
In a move that has sparked widespread outrage, the White House on Monday claimed that its September airstrike on a suspected drug boat was justified as "self-defense". The double-tap strike, which targeted survivors of an initial attack, has been labelled a war crime by some critics.
According to Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary, Admiral Frank Bradley gave the order for the second strike and asserted that he had acted within his authority and the law. However, details of the strike remain shrouded in mystery, with allegations circulating that US forces were ordered to "kill them all".
The claim has been vehemently denied by US Secretary Pete Hegseth, who last week dismissed reports as "fake news" and characterised the attack as lawful under both US and international law. However, Hegseth's comments on social media have been widely seen as tone-deaf and dismissive of concerns about the strike.
Critics argue that the White House's justification for the double-tap strike is flimsy at best and ignores established international law. The incident has sparked a heated debate about the use of military force and the need for greater transparency in such operations.
The strike has been widely condemned by human rights groups and other critics, who point to the fact that survivors were not given the opportunity to surrender or seek medical attention before being targeted again. As one observer noted, "the law of armed conflict explicitly prohibits attacking people who are no longer a threat", yet the US appears to have ignored this principle in its pursuit of alleged narco-terrorists.
The White House's attempts to justify the strike as "self-defense" are seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to obscure the truth and avoid accountability for the actions taken by US forces. With the incident continuing to spark outrage, it remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will finally come clean about what really happened on that fateful day in September.
In a move that has sparked widespread outrage, the White House on Monday claimed that its September airstrike on a suspected drug boat was justified as "self-defense". The double-tap strike, which targeted survivors of an initial attack, has been labelled a war crime by some critics.
According to Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary, Admiral Frank Bradley gave the order for the second strike and asserted that he had acted within his authority and the law. However, details of the strike remain shrouded in mystery, with allegations circulating that US forces were ordered to "kill them all".
The claim has been vehemently denied by US Secretary Pete Hegseth, who last week dismissed reports as "fake news" and characterised the attack as lawful under both US and international law. However, Hegseth's comments on social media have been widely seen as tone-deaf and dismissive of concerns about the strike.
Critics argue that the White House's justification for the double-tap strike is flimsy at best and ignores established international law. The incident has sparked a heated debate about the use of military force and the need for greater transparency in such operations.
The strike has been widely condemned by human rights groups and other critics, who point to the fact that survivors were not given the opportunity to surrender or seek medical attention before being targeted again. As one observer noted, "the law of armed conflict explicitly prohibits attacking people who are no longer a threat", yet the US appears to have ignored this principle in its pursuit of alleged narco-terrorists.
The White House's attempts to justify the strike as "self-defense" are seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to obscure the truth and avoid accountability for the actions taken by US forces. With the incident continuing to spark outrage, it remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will finally come clean about what really happened on that fateful day in September.
... I mean, if they're saying it was self-defense, then shouldn't we know more details? Like, how did these people survive the first attack and still get targeted again? That sounds like a recipe for disaster to me... And isn't it weird that there's not more transparency about what really went down? I've seen some of the footage from the strike and it looks super intense... I just want to know the truth 
.
. And now the White House is all "it was self-defense" but really it sounds like they just wanted to make an example out of someone 
. I'm not saying the narco-terrorists deserve a free pass or anything, but do we really need that much drama? and btw what's with the secrecy around this whole thing? can't we get some truth outta them for once? 
like what is goin on with these airstrikes?? its literally war crimes or smthn 
i mean cant they jus admit they messed up? the whole "self-defense" thing sounds like pure BS to me 
especially wen u consider the fact that survivors wernt even given a chance 2 surrender or get medical attention 4eva 
. the ppl r right, there needs 2 b more transparency in these ops or somethin! its not about bein "lawful" or "justified", its about human rights & respect for life 
. the white house is jus tryna sweep this under the rug, but we cant let them 
.
. The fact that some people are claiming it's a war crime just seems like a bunch of hooey to me 
I mean, they've already denied some of the allegations, but maybe there's more to it than meets the eye 
. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet 
. Maybe we should be supporting our troops and their efforts to keep us safe instead of tearing them apart 
.
... it's like they're trying to cover their tracks instead of owning up to what went down 
.
. This double-tap strike may be justified by some, but to me it's just another example of how out of touch the US is with the rest of us on this planet 
.
. Get me some solid sources on this one, stat! 
. And for what? To avoid accountability? That's not how it works, fam 
. We can't just sweep this under the rug or label it as "fake news" when the evidence is right there in front of us 
.
like, who exactly is 'admiral frank bradley' supposed to be? some sort of white house superhero who got to make life or death decisions without actually having to deal with the consequences? 
. And don't even get me started on this whole "law of armed conflict" thing - sounds like a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo to me 
.
. and pete hegseth's social media comments? tone deaf lol 
.
how can they claim it was self-defense when there's no transparency on what really happened? It's like they're trying to cover their own behinds and avoid taking responsibility.
I hope someone comes forward with more information soon because right now we have way too many unanswered questions
what if there's more to it than we know?