Vice President Vance says he “does not give a sh**” if his role facilitating the killing of unnamed civilians in peacetime on international waters is called a warcrime.
SEP 7
Was it a warcrime?
There is a strong argument that JD Vance and President Trump committed a warcrime in international waters by killing eleven unspecified civilian suspects on a private vessel in violation of international, maritime law, and U.S. law.
At first blush, the action appears unlawful. But before reaching final conclusions, let’s wait for more information.
What is so troubling, and with such far reaching implications, is the White House messaging that they “don’t give a “sh..” if their use of the military to kill civilians in international water was a warcrime.
When confronted with the possibility that the White House had authorized a warcrime, Vance lost it. He posted:
“I don’t give a “sh..” what you call it.”
Of course, what we call it really matters.
It matters so much that if it was a warcrime, and JD Vance was party to sanctioning an unlawful killing, he could be subject to life imprisonment under international law.
A Defining Issue of the 21st Century is the Validation of Warcrimes by Superpowers
For three years, the world has been shouting “war crimes” about the mass rapes, unlawful killings, tortures, kidnappings, theft, and targeting of civilians committed by Putin.
Since January 20, 2025, the White House has done triple backflips to avoid dealing with the issue.
Meanwhile, former Russian president Medvedev has built a reputation for boasting about war crimes and telling the West he does not “give a sh…” what we think because he intends to burn us to the ground.
Enter Vance with the same nonchalant attitude to war crimes. The parallels between the two men are troubling. Medvedev and Vance have built reputations for verbal vomit and chest puffery. But this time, the American Vice President may have crossed a line by pulling the ultimate Medvedev—admitting he really does not care if America is engaged in war crimes.
The Trump Administration Could Have Addressed Alleged Cartel Issues Lawfully
Concerning the strike on the alleged cartel members: there is a legal process that honors international law and American principles of due process for intercepting civilians in international waters suspected of being part of a drug cartel. International maritime law permits interdiction and seizure; it does not authorize the death penalty delivered from a drone against unnamed civilians, regardless of the crimes of which they are suspects.
Now we are left with questions: Here are a few:
- Who were the 11 people killed—what are their names and identities?
- What specific evidence exists that they were cartel members?
- Were they armed or presenting an imminent threat at the time of the strike?
- Was there any attempt at interdiction, arrest, or due process before lethal force was used?
- What legal authority was cited to justify this action in international waters?
- Were U.S. allies or international bodies notified or consulted beforehand?
- How does the administration reconcile this action with American constitutional principles and international law?
- What precedent does this set for future U.S. military or drone actions against civilians abroad?
- Why should we trust the White House?
The Highest Objective for the Military?
What of the military? Is blowing up civilian vessels in peacetime the “highest” objective of the U.S. military, as the Vice President insists? Far from it. The Constitution empowers our military to defend the nation, not to carry out extrajudicial killings of civilians on the high seas under the guise of “strength.” Nor can the Trump Administration simply “declare war” on another nation, let alone civilians, without an act of Congress.
If the highest calling of the U.S. military is reduced to blowing up a fishing boat and killing 11 unverified civilian suspects during peacetime in foreign waters, then America has drifted from its constitutional and strategic purpose. Such actions risk projecting weakness masquerading as strength—bravado in place of leadership.
DW Phillips is a constitutional attorney, a filmmaker and journalist. He directs for Ukraine Story.
“For three years, the world has been shouting “war crimes” about the mass rapes, unlawful killings, tortures, kidnappings, theft, and targeting of civilians committed by Putin.
Since January 20, 2025, the White House has done triple backflips to avoid dealing with the issue.”
A very telling comment.
The “utterly vile” (to quote Jonathan Fink) VanZkov is known mainly for his psychopathic callousness regarding Ukraine and his thuggish behaviour towards Zel.
Vance is clearly a piece of dog shite. Thankfully, LOTS of Americans hate this prick. There are literally countless videos showing him being booed wherever he shows his makeup face in public.