Dec. 3, 2025 7 AM PT
To the editor: A few weeks ago, two survivors of a missile strike have 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 battle crime (“Killing survivors is not a legal or moral gray area,” Dec. 2)? Within the alleged double-tap incident, does utilizing a missile make it much less of a battle crime? What could be the distinction between a second missile strike and machine-gunning the survivors?
In World Battle 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 battle 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 Regulation of Battle Guide much less of a battle 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 often be calling for costs of battle crimes towards that nation. The silence is deafening.
Donald Peppars, Pomona
..
To the editor: The drug downside 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 options on Venezuela strikes amid congressional alarm,” Dec. 1)?
Whereas the U.S. is conducting extrajudicial killings of seamen departing from Venezuela allegedly smuggling medicine, 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 Battle. One among my missions was to patrol the coastal waters of Vietnam, looking for and maybe destroying boats that have been supplying enemy troops within the south. Many of the boats we encountered have been harmless fishermen. These appeared precisely like enemy provide craft, so there was not a lot we might do apart from report every contact to headquarters in Saigon.
I can not learn of at present’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 menace 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 battle and the American code of navy conduct. What additionally must be acknowledged is that if our navy ignores these guidelines, it gives an incentive and excuse for our adversaries, whether or not already predisposed or not, to provide 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 senseless”?
Henry Rosenfeld, Santa Monica
