To the editor: Just a few weeks in the past, two survivors of a missile strike had been rescued from the water and ultimately launched to their house international locations.
If these two survivors had been thrown again within the water and machine-gunned, would that be a warfare crime (“Killing survivors will not be a authorized or ethical grey space,” Dec. 2)? Within the alleged double-tap incident, does utilizing a missile make it much less of a warfare crime? What could be the distinction between a second missile strike and machine-gunning the survivors?
In World Warfare II, a German U-boat commander ordered his sailors to machine-gun survivors of a torpedo strike. The British tried and convicted him of a warfare crime and executed him.
Has the usage of drones and missiles made violations of the Geneva Conference and of the U.S. Division of Protection’s personal Legislation of Warfare Handbook much less of a warfare crime?
Mark Henderson, El Dorado Hills
..
To the editor: If another nation on the planet was attacking small boats off the coast of sovereign international locations and in worldwide waters, killing their crews and their passengers who had been accused of drug trafficking seemingly with out proof, the USA authorities would normally be calling for prices of warfare crimes towards that nation. The silence is deafening.
Donald Peppars, Pomona
..
To the editor: The drug drawback on this nation is a matter of provide and demand. Take away the demand, and the provision takes care of itself. The demand is homegrown, so why does the USA proceed to punish beleaguered international locations for apparently assembly that demand (“Trump weighs choices on Venezuela strikes amid congressional alarm,” Dec. 1)?
Whereas the U.S. is conducting extrajudicial killings of seamen departing from Venezuela allegedly smuggling medication, why the saber-rattling by a president who claims to finish wars and to not begin them? Wouldn’t it’s extra efficacious to work on the demand facet of the equation right here at house?
Denys Arcuri, Indio
..
To the editor: I flew American planes in the course of the lamented Vietnam Warfare. One in every of my missions was to patrol the coastal waters of Vietnam, in search of and maybe destroying boats that had been supplying enemy troops within the south. A lot of the boats we encountered had been harmless fishermen. These regarded precisely like enemy provide craft, so there was not a lot we may do apart from report every contact to headquarters in Saigon.
I can not learn of as we speak’s destruction of small boats, in addition to the cold-blooded killings of the crews on these boats, when there is no such thing as a extra direct proof of a risk than there was by harmless fishermen in days passed by.
Stephen Sloane, Lomita
..
To the editor: It’s indeniable that giving no quarter is a violation of well-established guidelines of warfare and the American code of navy conduct. What additionally must be acknowledged is that if our navy ignores these guidelines, it supplies an incentive and excuse for our adversaries, whether or not already predisposed or not, to offer no quarter to our navy personnel once they’re hors de fight or captured. What goes round usually comes round.
Howard R. Worth, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: If our president is so intent on killing drug-smuggling “terrorists,” I’m having problem understanding why is he pardoning Honduras’ former president, who’s a convicted drug trafficker (“Trump says he’ll pardon former Honduran President Hernandez, convicted of drug trafficking,” Nov. 28). Is that this what they name “cognitive dissonance”?
How about, extra merely, “what President Trump does is unnecessary”?
Henry Rosenfeld, Santa Monica
