Interior minister says ‘murder has been committed’ amid rising tensions over US military strike on boat in Caribbean

None of the 11 people killed in a US military strike on a boat in the Caribbean last week were members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, Venezuela’s interior minister has said, as the South American country deployed troops amid heightened tensions with the US.

The administration of Donald Trump has said the boat was transporting illegal narcotics, but has provided scant further information about the incident, even amid demands from members of the US Congress for a justification for the action.

“They openly confessed to killing 11 people,” the interior minister and ruling party head, Diosdado Cabello, said on state television. “We have done our investigations here in our country and there are the families of the disappeared people who want their relatives, and when we asked in the towns, none were from Tren de Aragua, none were drug traffickers.

  • Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    174
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Even if they WERE gang members, civilized nations do not shoot civilians.

    They could have boarded the ship and detained them, but they chose violence.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      They even admitted they could’ve interdicted the boat, but chose to kill them instead.

      It was 100% absolutely, unquestionably a war crime.

      And even if Trump is immune, the rest of those involved are NOT. Some of them are lawyering up, because war crimes can carry a death penalty.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Is it still a war crime without a war? I’m not trying to split hairs or justify the crime, just wondering about definitions. A quick search didn’t really clarify it. Violation of international law, absolutely. And who would prosecute? I don’t think the US has allowed itself to be subjugated to any international court.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          It technically may not even be a breach of international law, since the US is one of the few countries that did not ratify UNCLOS, the law that would apply in international waters. The US was evil for a long time and refused to sign anything that would hold them even symbolically accountable. This did not start with Trump. He just went mask off.

          • icelimit@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Would this mean that the reverse is also true? Any ‘war crimes’ done on Americans aren’t war crimes because they themselves don’t recognise it?

            We just need a bigger stick?

            • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              I would love to know as well, so I am slowly reading the UNCLOS treaty as I have time. We have no obligation towards US to not sink their ships, but we may have given promises to other parties of UNCLOS not to attack any ships, even those that did not sign.

              It’s like if your promise your wife you will be nice to your mother in law. You did not promise anything to your mother in law and she promised nothing to you, but you are still obligated to be nice to her unless your wife agrees to cancel the promise.

              So I don’t know if UNCLOS only deals with not sinking member ships or all ships.

              Also, touching US ships is historically very dumb thing to do.

        • krakenfury@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          13 hours ago

          You’re correct, the ICC’s jurisdiction has never been recognized by the US, or a bunch of other countries for that matter. They could still prosecute individuals and convict them, but the US wouldn’t hand them over, and it’s not likely that anyone would attempt to come get them.

          There is a pretty large number of ICC fugatives from all over the world, notably Russian and Israeli officials. Afaik, France and the UK are the only two UN members with veto power that recognize the ICC’s official jurisdiction.

    • zrst@lemmy.cif.su
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Gang members aren’t civilians.

      It’s always open season on them.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        By whose definition? Gang members ARE civilians, (assuming they’re not actively shooting at things). Just because they’re damaging to society does not change that definition.