The United States of America is once again committing war crimes. In fact, the recent revelation in the Washington Post that there were two survivors of one of the military's missile attacks on small boats, and that a second missile was launched specifically to kill the survivors, was literally a textbook example of a war crime. The entire operation -- killing people who are in international waters who are not at war with the U.S. -- is probably a war crime as well, but with this particular example there is absolutely no doubt. But I for one am not going to hold my breath waiting for any of the people involved to be held to any sort of account for their actions.

Here is what the military's own textbook has to say about the subject:

Killing survivors of a destroyed vessel is literally an example of a war crime in the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual. "For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal," the manual reads.

Got that? "Clearly illegal." It's a pretty basic concept. And, not surprisingly, experts agree:

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who headed the Office of Legal Counsel in the George W. Bush administration, wrote online: "If the [Washington] Post's facts are correct, it appears that Special Operations Forces committed murder when the 'two men were blown apart in the water,' as the Post put it." A working group of former judge-advocates general also weighed in: "Orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are 'patently illegal,' anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both."

In fact, the whole campaign is clearly illegal:

Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon's lethal campaign -- which has killed more than 80 people to date -- is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution.

The alleged traffickers pose no imminent threat of attack against the United States and are not, as the Trump administration has tried to argue, in an "armed conflict" with the U.S., these officials and experts say. Because there is no legitimate war between the two sides, killing any of the men in the boats "amounts to murder," said Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign.

Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat's occupants if they were no longer able to fight "would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime," said Huntley, now director of the national security law program at Georgetown Law.

The new information about the second strike is so shameful that even Republicans in Congress are actually getting upset about it. This is new, since up until now pretty much anything Donald Trump did was fine with them. But the GOP chairs of both the House and Senate committees with oversight responsibilities for the military are now calling for an investigation. The White House has been trying to distance itself and shield Pete Hegseth, but the chain of command is the chain of command. If the order to "kill everyone" was given by Trump and/or Hegseth, then they own the consequences.

Not that there will be consequences, mind you -- other than perhaps political blowback. Even if Congress determines that a war crime has occurred, my guess is that nobody -- in uniform or not -- is ever going to face any legal consequences. In fact, I'll go even further and say that Trump won't ever even need to pardon anyone, because no charges will ever be brought.

Trump and Hegseth won't listen to any lawyer who tells them that what they're doing is illegal. Instead, they will find lawyers who agree with their rationale and fire anyone who disagrees. Remember the "torture memo" from George W. Bush's time? Trump already has legal opinions that agree with him that: (1) drug cartels are "at war" with us, (2) they are also terrorist organizations, therefore (3) killing them anywhere at any time is justified and legal. So far, they haven't even been required to present any proof whatsoever that the people they are blowing apart in the water are even drug smugglers (and not, say, fishermen).

It's pretty obvious that neither Trump nor Hegseth nor the Department of Justice is ever going to order the prosecution of anybody involved. If the military actually charges anyone and tries to court martial them, either Trump or Hegseth will shut it down immediately (and probably fire everyone involved).

And I put zero hope in some future administration -- of either party -- revisiting the whole thing and prosecuting everyone involved in that second airstrike. Because we've already seen what happens in this case. When Barack Obama entered office, he could (and should) have opened a wide investigation and prosecuted of all those involved in torturing prisoners in the "War on Terror." He chose not to, since it would have been very divisive and highly embarrassing for the whole country (on the world stage). So the American military and C.I.A. got away with what were plainly war crimes. The exact same thing will happen now even if Congress declares war crimes have been committed -- which is to say, nothing.

"I was just following orders" is not supposed to be an acceptable defense for committing war crimes (or crimes against humanity). That's the theory, in any case. But I highly doubt that anyone who followed any of these orders is ever going to even have to present that as a defense in any kind of court, because I do not think anyone will ever be prosecuted for any of it. Even though what happened is literally a textbook example of a war crime.

In fact, the only way I see for an actual court martial to happen is if someone in the military refuses to comply with some future order to kill people who are not at war with this country. If a soldier or sailor refused an order because it was illegal, you can bet your bottom dollar that Trump and Hegseth would indeed order an immediate court martial. That might be the only way facts get out to the public (although who knows what Hegseth and Trump would claim were national secrets and couldn't be discussed in open court?).

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant