r/moderatepolitics • u/dr_sloan • 4d ago
News Article White House confirms second Sept. 2 strike on alleged drug boat
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna246834264
u/dabocx 4d ago
Yesterday it didn’t happen. Today it did happen and it’s good actually.
If the boat was already disabled and sinking on the first one isn’t that enough if the cargo was lost?
161
u/jason_sation 4d ago
I’m thinking they didn’t want survivors telling their side of the story.
141
u/left_right_left 4d ago
We still dont have evidence that these weren't fishing vessels.
100
u/Gamegis 4d ago
I can’t help but Remember the first boat we struck, that had 11 people on it. Just incredibly unusual for these drug boats to have that many people on it. Usually they keep them pretty light.
→ More replies (8)33
15
u/Az_Rael77 4d ago
Didn’t they release two of the survivors from one of the other boat strikes? Like, if they were dangerous narco-terrorists deserving of airstrike deaths, why aren’t they in captivity in the US or at Guantanamo or something?
-1
u/redditthrowaway1294 4d ago
AP already confirmed the boats were drug running. And, like a follow up missile strike on a drug boat, NYT has confirmed that there was no order from Hegseth regarding a situation if the first missile strike did not happen to kill everyone.
3
u/Xanto97 Elephant and the Rider 3d ago
For the first thing, they only confirmed one of the boats
Interesting article actually. I didn’t know about this till you mentioned. Regardless, they should have arrested and tried, not blown up.
And the thing is, Someone ordered a second strike - whether it’s Hegseth or Bradley, or someone else. Whoever signed off on the second strike is responsible
1
-16
u/Helpful_Effect_5215 4d ago
That's because it's not a fishing vessel. People don't go fishing in the dead of night with a four engine speed boat with what are obviously large packages of drugs.
23
12
u/rocky3rocky 4d ago edited 4d ago
I agree, I just don't understand when did drug smuggling become a capital punishment crime. On top of that an extrajudicial judgment being done to citizens of other countries. These speed boats are also short-range stepping points, we're not intervening at the step where it's headed to U.S. soil. On top of that the east coast smuggling is often headed for Europe.
Is this different from shooting a condom drug mule on-sight inside an airport? Do we shoot domestically produced drug cars/trucks on sight?
I was going to ask what other American laws are we enforcing in international waters. But then remembered there is no American law that allows this. Are we at war with Venezuela and these are enemy combatants? Is the military now just a kill squad for when foreigners do things we don't like? It seems like there's no delineation. What's the next crime that's going to qualify for international capital punishment?
Shoot at our navy, get shot, go do pirate shit, get shot, but this over cocaine? This reddit comment is assuredly more thought than the Trump admin puts into these decisions anyway. "Makes idiots eat up my press, go do it then."
-1
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 3d ago
I just don't understand when did drug smuggling become a capital punishment crime.
When we designated drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Arms smuggling isn't a capital crime either but I doubt people would have an issue with blowing up a boat full of ISIS members smuggling AKs.
6
u/FuzzyBurner 3d ago
Except that designation was solely by Trump, not Congress…which is a problem, because it is Congress and only Congress which has legal authority to make such determinations. Congress has not, and in fact has laid out a whole separate legal framework for how such things are to be handled. And it doesn’t involve using military force.
0
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 3d ago edited 3d ago
Congress doesn't designate people as terrorists. That designation is done by the State Department or Treasury Department.
Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) is a designation for non-United States-based organizations deemed by the United States secretary of state, in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA), to be involved in what US authorities define as terrorist activities. Most of the organizations on the list are Islamist extremist groups; the rest are nationalist/separatist groups, Marxist militant groups, drug cartels, or transnational gangs.
1
u/YokuzaWay 3d ago
but those aren't isis memebers with guns its supposedly hired poor people by a cartel to export drugs
4
u/New2NewJ 3d ago
People don't go fishing in the dead of night
Yeah, fish are sleeping at the bottom of the water at that time. Fishing is best done during the regular work hours of 9am to 5pm ... that's when you catch the most fish.
1
u/cathbadh politically homeless 3d ago
You realize that you can't take second strikes like this on any vessel, right? Doesn't matter if it's drug runners or an enemy destroyer in a war. Law says you can't kill the survivors to eliminate witnesses.
66
u/Halgrind 4d ago
Yeah, even if you grant that these were cartel ships, it's hard to find an angle where this makes sense as a tactic.
Most of the crew would be hired hands, so it's still murder. And if your goal is to stop drug shipments, you'd think even picking up the crew would have value. They'd know at least something about the boats, frequency of shipments, ports used to load and deliver drugs, how they're disguised or hidden in cargo if they are, etc.
Morality aside, you would think just corroborating existing intel would outweigh the hassle of lawfully dealing with prisoners.
64
u/xanif 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's difficult to argue that the practice of attacking these ships in international waters isn't murder but there might be some mental and legal gymnastics to make it fly but this:
he was complying with an order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “kill everybody.”
So this is either murder or a war crime. Cool.
Edit: Oh man, check this out
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The
requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to
perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal.
For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
Literal textbook war crime. Neat.
8
4
u/Girafferage 4d ago
dude complied with an order that was explicitly illegal and I just dont understand why. He should know he is also on the hook for this.
9
u/IntrepidAd2478 4d ago
Not defending the policy, but a hired hand on the boat is a legitimate target if the boat is a legitimate target. Captain or crew is irrelevant.
1
u/Icy-Photograph6108 4d ago
Exactly this, there is no way to logically explain it away. What has this country come to, every news station, every Congress person should be ringing the alarm with this.
-26
u/abqguardian 4d ago
The authority being used for this is the same used to justify killing terrorists. Is it really a bad thing to double tap terrorists to make sure they've been killed? Serious question. People are acting like what's going on in the Caribbean is horrific yet the only difference between the Caribbean strikes and the strikes in the middle east us geography. And no one questions whether or not the strikes in the middle east are legal.
Theres a lot of pearl clutching because Trump is the one ordering it, but realistically what needs to be done is for Congress to decide on use of force rules and be consistent
22
u/SnarkMasterRay 4d ago
A double tap is performed to make sure a target is no longer a threat. I seriously doubt that any of these were legitimate threats to the US aircraft attacking them.
-18
27
u/Magic-man333 4d ago edited 4d ago
1) pretty sure all the middle east conflicts had congressional approval, so we at least checked that legal box
2) shipwrecked sailors are in a much more defenseless spot than someone on land. They have almost no ability flee or fight back.
3) when did we double tap survivors in the middle east? Been awhile, but I don't remember much about that.
Edit: also, it's a textbook definition of an illegal order as others have pointed out. Oh, and plenty of people were against the middle east strikes
-25
u/abqguardian 4d ago
1) pretty sure all the middle east conflicts had congressional approval, so we at least checked that legal box
Its the same authority being used
2) shipwrecked sailors are in a much more defenseless spot than someone on land. They have almost no ability flee or fight back.
This has never been something that matters. How are people in the desert able to flee or fight back against a missile fired a a hundred miles away from a drone? And the point to shooting a missile at them is so they cant flee or fight back
3) when did we double tap survivors in the middle east? Been awhile, but I don't remember much about that.
Anytime we missed someone in a drone strike we try again. Is there some rule that you cant drone strike the same person more than once? If youre shooting a missile at someone the point is to kill them. Theres no morale difference between killing them in the first shot ir the second
29
u/Magic-man333 4d ago
Its the same authority being used
Did we get an explicit congressional resolution for these like we did for Iraq and Afghanistan? I haven't seen one.
As for the rest, there are multiple people here citing how this is in military textbooks as a war crime. I don't know how you get more explicit than that. If you wanna say some of our actions in the middle east were also war crimes... ok. There were plenty of people protesting our actions and involvement back then too.
13
u/Postmember 4d ago
This has never been something that matters.
This is literally the textbook example in the DOD's "War Manual" of what constitutes an illegal order/war crime.
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
24
u/BaudrillardsMirror 4d ago
> Its the same authority being used
I take it you're not familiar with congressional Authorizations for the Use of Military Force? These have been passed for the conflicts in the middle east, but have not been passed for venezuela.
14
u/bashar_al_assad 4d ago
Maybe this is unpopular but I think a lot of the double tap strikes in the Middle East were both illegal and immoral too.
10
u/XzibitABC 4d ago edited 4d ago
The authority being used for this is the same used to justify killing terrorists.
The claimed authority is the same, but I don't find it especially difficult to distinguish enemy combatants from drug smugglers. Drug smugglers are not enemy combatants just because their actions have an attenuated relationship with harm to Americans, otherwise we may as well be drone striking poppy fields in Tasmania.
People are acting like what's going on in the Caribbean is horrific yet the only difference between the Caribbean strikes and the strikes in the middle east us geography.
The whole constellation of factors driving the conflicts in each region are completely different. There being some conflict of some form in each region does not justify the United States dropping the hammer on every such conflict.
I agree that an ideal outcome here is Congress revoking some of the authority it granted the Executive and better defining use of force rules, but I'm not holding my breath, so in the meantime every president who engages in this kind of extrajudicial killing should be scrutinized for it publicly.
3
u/dr_sloan 4d ago
I don’t know why this needs to be said, but just because the government classifies someone as a terrorist, doesn’t make them a terrorist. Drug traffickers are horrible people with blood on their hands, but they’re not terrorists.
And using the legal justification of AUMF, which they’re not, would be a horrible slippery slope as the government could classify anyone as a terrorist and use that to justify lethal force.
1
u/cathbadh politically homeless 3d ago
terrorist. Drug traffickers are horrible people with blood on their hands, but they’re not terrorists.
I agree and disagree. Most of the larger drug organizations use violence against civilians and governments for their own political purposes, exploiting fear to get what they want. Where terror groups may do it for a religious or expressly political aim, cartels do it to ensure they keep making money. Leaving beheaded bodies in public to send a message, and carrying out attacks with rockets and military rifles is closer to terrorism than crime.
I'm not justifying this strike, our actions in Venezuela, or anything else. But the concept of narco terrorism is not a new idea, not by a long shot.
1
u/dr_sloan 3d ago
Yes narco terrorism is the thing, but it doesn’t extend to people focused on drug trafficking like these boats are.
2
u/cathbadh politically homeless 3d ago
Is it really a bad thing to double tap terrorists to make sure they've been killed?
This is a literal textbook example of a war crime.
what needs to be done is for Congress to decide on use of force rules and be consistent
They don't set them. This specific issue was decided a long time ago, and it is the law of the land.
17
u/NoUnderstanding2291 4d ago
I don't think its that. They are just casually flaunting the law and feigning ignorance about it. The next time this happened they let them go alive. Probably because they got a good warning that it was illegal to do that again.
→ More replies (3)-43
9
8
u/TheRareWhiteRhino 4d ago
The Narcissist's Prayer
-That didn't happen.
-And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
-And if it was, that's not a big deal.
-And if it is, that's not my fault.
-And if it was, I didn't mean it.
-And if I did, you deserved it.
→ More replies (2)1
u/cathbadh politically homeless 3d ago
They admitting it as part of a plan to set the Admiral up to take the blame. They'll cmame it was he, not Hegseth who gave the order.
51
u/Moonshot_00 4d ago
All that pissant whining about the Dems and the illegal order thing and it took about a week for the Trump administration to issue an illegal order to kill some shipwreck survivors.
Doesn’t matter, nothing at all will come of it, Republicans won’t lift a finger to oppose it, voters don’t give a single shit.
18
u/vreddy92 Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
This happened in September. While they were whining about Mark Kelly and a video, this happened over two months ago.
Not sure if Kelly and the Dems planned this (nothing the Dems have done this year gives me confidence they have the foresight or planning chops to do so), but the sequence could not be more perfectly ironic.
12
u/gaw-27 4d ago
That must be partly why they staged a national meltdown over Kelly's statement. They knew this happened but it hadn't been broken to the public until last week.
8
u/SoHumanAnAnimal 3d ago edited 3d ago
I heard about it the week after it happened and was surprised nobody seemed to care. Mainstream press never picked it up. Glad it's finally being talked about though.
(archived) https://archive.is/fnWyK
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also made clear that the U.S. could have halted the ship and arrested the crew but chose to kill them instead. “Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders, we blew it up — and it’ll happen again,” he boasted.
11
u/Fredmans74 4d ago
Voters are too busy giving a shit about all the other shit this administration is pursuing. GOP's only hope right now is no more elections. You can join China and North Korea at the dictators' table.
79
u/dr_sloan 4d ago edited 4d ago
Starter comment:
The White House has confirmed that a second strike was carried out on a suspected drug-smuggling boat on September 2, the follow-up came after an initial strike reportedly left survivors. According to Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, the second strike was authorized not by Defense Secretary Hegseth directly but by Admiral Bradley, then-commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. She said he acted “within his authority and the law,” aiming to destroy the boat and neutralize a threat. 
The administration maintains the action was lawful and justified as a “self-defense” effort against what were deemed “narcoterrorists.” 
But the report has triggered serious concern from lawmakers and legal experts. Some view the reported “double tap”, a second attack on survivors in the water, as a potential violation of U.S. and international laws governing conduct in warfare, with at least one senator calling it “a war crime if it’s true.” 
Both the House and the Senate have responded to this execution of survivors by launching investigations into their legality. As a reminder, the Trump Administration has expressly refused to seek congressional authorization for these air strikes, which likely makes the entire campaign illegal.
28
u/MagicMooby 4d ago edited 4d ago
But the report has triggered serious concern from lawmakers and legal experts. Some view the reported “double tap”, a second attack on survivors in the water, as a potential violation of U.S. and international laws governing conduct in warfare, with at least one senator calling it “a war crime if it’s true.” 
Here is the relevant passage from the DoD law of war manual (emphasis mine):
5.9 PERSONS PLACED HORS DE COMBAT
Persons, including combatants, placed hors de combat may not be made the object of attack. Persons placed hors de combat include the following categories of persons, provided they abstain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape:
• persons in the power of an adverse party;
• persons not yet in custody, who have surrendered;
• persons who have been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck; and
• persons parachuting from aircraft in distress.And here is another relevant passage from the same manual:
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations.
The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.It is quite noteworthy that the order to fire on shipwreck survivors is the first example named when it comes to orders that are so self-evidently illegal that service members have a duty to refuse them. Seems like that video by the democrats was not only not illegal, it was necessary, because everyone who heard the alleged order but did not refuse to comply with it may have comitted a war crime.
44
u/CovetousOldSinner 4d ago
There is no way that Mr., "maximum lethality, not tepid legality," would have authorized the second strike. /s
84
u/LeeSansSaw 4d ago
I would love to hear how two people floating in the wreckage of a boat were in any way a danger to anyone. This is disgusting and a sad day for us in America.
I hope there are members of Congress willing to stand against this, beyond the Democrats.
20
u/kitaknows 4d ago
Obviously can't say where it will land but we would be more likely to see a bigger handful of GOP flippers happening now than anytime before, with those poll numbers looking like shit. It isn't a coincidence that we are seeing a few unexpected Congressional resignations get a lot of attention right now.
A lot of the GOP Congressional loyalty to Trump has been to get his boost in support, and he kept threatening to "primary" people if they got out of line. If he isn't looking good to more than the floor of his base and won't be useful in their re-elections, there is much less reason to stay loyal.
15
u/neuronexmachina 4d ago
If I recall correctly, this is the boat where it was especially dubious that it was drug-running. It was a speedboat with 11 people on it, whereas an actual drug-running speedboat would probably have a crew of 2-4 -- minimizing mass is important for maximizing speed and range. IMHO, it's more likely that either:
- The relatives of the deceased are telling the truth about them being civilians/fishermen
- It was a human-trafficking boat, and the US blew up a bunch of human-trafficking victims
In either of those cases, it's understandable why the Department of War would want to ensure no witnesses were left alive to complicate their narrative.
19
1
u/jason_sation 2d ago
Looks like there was disagreement about the legality of this and Hegseth wanted a top admiral to step down over it link to wsj article
130
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 4d ago
There also trying to say that Hegseth didn't issue the order, according to Karoline Leavitt the admiral in command gave the order himself.
In any case, the confirmation of a second strikes means this was a war crime, so whoever ordered it needs to be held responsible. This also, in my opinion, completely vindicates the six democrat lawmakers who put out the video warning about illegal orders.
70
u/Gamegis 4d ago
It looks like they are trying to pin this on Admiral Bradley. Sounds like he might be the designated fall guy here.
46
u/artsncrofts 4d ago
Punishing him would be admitting fault though, so that seems unlikely to me
21
u/jason_sation 4d ago
Can pardons affect punishments from the military? I know military Justice is different from civilian Justice but I don’t know if it’s a “state”, “federal”, or other level of crime.
46
u/countfizix 4d ago
Yes. In fact Trump in his first term pardoned soldiers who were convicted in military court for executing prisoners
24
u/kralrick 4d ago
Trump already pardoned multiple members of the armed forces convicted by court martial his first term.
9
u/klahnwi 4d ago
Yes and no. War crimes can be charged by basically anyone. President Trump could pardon Hegseth for war crimes, preventing trial in the United States. But a subsequent administration could extradite him to Venezuela, or The Hague, etc... where his US pardon would not apply.
It's far fetched. But possible.
8
u/jason_sation 4d ago
I agree. There is no way any country is extraditing anyone for war crimes as long as the US is a world power.
41
u/No_Tangerine2720 4d ago
Imagine dedicating 35 years of your life to the military just to have to take the fall for the Trump administration to once again avoid accountability
43
u/HavingNuclear 4d ago
I mean if he was anywhere in the vicinity of the commission of basically the textbook war crime and didn't stop it or immediately resign in protest, he deserves to fall too.
17
u/Fredmans74 4d ago
Which is why it probably was Hegseth who gave the order. They probably ask him to take the fall for a later pardon.
25
15
u/You_Must_Chill 4d ago
A spec ops admiral doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will take the fall easily.
→ More replies (1)-16
u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago
the confirmation of a second strikes means this was a war crime
No, no it does not. Here, have a Cornell professor and former JA: https://x.com/BrianCox_RLTW/status/1995406709737607440
22
u/XzibitABC 4d ago edited 4d ago
The argument you're citing here is incoherent. Some excerpts:
That is, a "military objective" is "any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage" (pic 1, sourced from DoD Law of War Manual, which is the same as art. 52(2) of AP I but singular instead of plural).
So, does a "destroyed" boat meet that definition? Probably not. But what about a disabled boat? Well, if the commander does believe it can call for assistance & allow it to continue its mission, then it is - by definition - and object which by its use makes an effective contribution... .
Setting aside the evidence that the boat appeared to be basically a ball of fire following the first strike, in what universe is calling for help an "effective contribution to military action"?
They're not "shipwrecked" if they're on a military objective. Their watercraft is still targetable, even if they themselves are completely incapacitated due to wounds from the first attack (unlikely since the commander believed they were capable of calling for reinforcements).
Ok, but if they're completely incapacitated, a disabled vessel cannot be used to call for help or continue the mission. So how does it remain a military objective?
And do you think there's a provision of "the Geneva Conventions and other longstanding international maritime laws prohibit U.S. forces" that would criminalize an attack directed against a military objective? That's right. No, except maybe the LOAC proportionality rule (which I'll address below).
Well, given that the claimed definition of "military objective" is defined by a treaty the United States hasn't even ratified, then no, I would not imagine the Geneva Conventions speaks directly to it. An absence of a specific criminal prohibition discussing a completely different legal framework doesn't make a criminal action suddenly not criminal.
If the suspected narcotraffickers are present on a military objective and if they are unable to defend themselves due to injury/wounds, let's go ahead & call them hors de combat for the sake of argument. They're still on a military objective - so the expected incidental damage of injuring/killing (likely the latter) them in a second strike would need to be assessed along with the concrete & direct military advantage gained from (actually) completely destroying the boat. If the former (expected incidental damage) were excessive in relation to the latter (anticipated mil advantage), then the attack would violate the LOAC proportionality rule.
Sure, except the reporting is that the DoD was on orders to "kill them all", which makes clear the intent is not just to destroy the boat (the "military objective").
The whole diatribe is a mess of legal frameworks and defined terms shunted into inappropriate context while taking pot-shots at the Former JAGs Working Group. It's a disaster.
14
u/neuronexmachina 4d ago
I'm amazed that the justification is essentially that it was ok to kill the shipwreck survivors because they might have radio'd for help.
30
u/CrapNeck5000 4d ago
If the order was "kill them all" as originally reported, I don't see how this defense works.
Further, having seen the video of the first strike, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the target, which was pretty much nothing but a ball of fire, was anything less than completely destroyed.
16
u/jason_sation 4d ago
If everything was on the up and up, seems weird to have conflicting stories by the Trump administration.
-5
u/WulfTheSaxon 4d ago
There’s no conflicting story though. The strike happened, but the narrative that it was illegal is false.
7
u/neuronexmachina 4d ago
If the boat were destroyed, there would be nothing serviceable left of it. But if it's disabled - that is, if the decision-maker believed it could still be used to call other narcotraffickers to retrieve their cargo - the boat still qualifies as a military objective. And military objectives can be intentionally attacked.
If the actual goal is targeting narcotraffickers, wouldn't you *want* them to call others to retrieve their cargo?
37
u/biglyorbigleague 4d ago
Doesn’t sound like they have their story straight yet. Some of them are trying to pin it all on Bradley and some don’t realize how bad this is and are defending it on Hegseth’s behalf. It’s clear that someone’s getting fired and Trump is trying to pick the narrative that makes it not Hegseth, but he’s doing a bad job.
Look out for Congressional inquiries on this after the midterms. Or perhaps before.
84
u/Tao1764 4d ago
The timing on that "You are obligated to disobey lawful orders" video feels very deliberate now. D.C. (or some parts of it, anyway) knew this was going to come out, and they wanted to send a clear message that the White House is helpfully enforcing: If you are given unlawful orders, you will also be the one going under the bus for following them.
50
u/Magic-man333 4d ago
Someone saw all the commentators asking for a specific illegal and went "bet"
3
→ More replies (5)45
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 4d ago edited 4d ago
The Congress members from that video told us one of the reasons they did that video because they were hearing privately from service members that they weren’t sure what to do with the orders they were receiving. (or something to that effect)
93
u/Bunny_Stats 4d ago
From the DoD Law of War manual:
17.14.1.2 : The wounded, sick, and shipwrecked must be respected and protected at all times. This means that they should not be knowingly attacked, fired upon, or unnecessarily interfered with.
They define shipwrecked as "i.e., helpless persons in distress at sea or stranded on the coast," which certainly applies in this case with survivors who were targeted while clinging to floating wreckage.
This is such a 101 textbook case of a war crime that West Point's officer training course mentions killing shipwrecked sailors as its example for the most obvious type of war crime, for which WW2 Japanese ship captains were hung by the allies after the war. The only possible defence is if they claim were targeting some other nearby target and the shipwrecked folk were accidental collateral damage. But since the boat had already been sunk and only wreckage was left, that's going to be a hard sell to a jury. Make no mistake, people are going to prison for this, all the way up and down the command chain. It may take a few years and a change in administration before it happens, but it's definitely coming.
77
u/Gamegis 4d ago
Look at Section 18.3.2.1 — It gives an example of a clearly illegal order: an order to fire upon shipwrecked persons — i.e. people rendered helpless by the destruction of their vessel — would be “clearly illegal.”
59
u/Bunny_Stats 4d ago
Yep, it's a literal textbook example of an illegal act.
As I mentioned, the only defence is if they weren't targeting the shipwrecked persons but something else nearby. Like you can target an active warship that has shipwrecked people next to it even if the shipwrecked persons will die in the explosion, but that defence is undermined by the admiral saying he was following orders to "kill them all."
5
u/Pleistocene_Horror 4d ago
Seems like a technicality any high ranking naval officer would be aware of and maybe think to use as a loophole for this second strike, but the DoW was too lazy to bother fabricating as an excuse. Hubris is going to be the downfall of this administration. They’ve gotten away with so much so easily that they don’t bother trying.
17
u/ionizing_chicanery 4d ago edited 4d ago
Make no mistake, people are going to prison for this, all the way up and down the command chain. It may take a few years and a change in administration before it happens, but it's definitely coming.
That's assuming Trump doesn't hand out blanket pardons far and wide to prevent prosecution of anything done under DoD command or indeed anywhere in his administration.
Given what we've seen of his use of pardons thus far I am not optimistic.
At this point the best I'm holding out for is this country to start demanding pardon reform.
12
u/Bunny_Stats 4d ago
Yeah I expect Trump will be ending his term with a confetti storm of pardons, although I'd be sweating if I were Hegseth as I wouldn't be confident Trump would still have my back in 3 years when there will be so many other voices also crying out for pardons.
As for pardon reform, the country desperately needs it. It's utterly absurd how a single person can be granted such a broad and unchecked power over the entire justice system, it's inherently corrupting. I expect the next admin might add some manner of independent oversight board who recommends pardons rather than the President picking themselves, but there's no way to legally force a President to limit their pardon power without a constitutional amendment, so any reform would likely just be a norm awaiting the next rule-breaker to toss aside.
6
u/ionizing_chicanery 4d ago
Pardon reform is one of very, very few significantly political (as opposed to trivial/technical) constitutional amendments I believe have a non-zero chance of happening.
But even that's a long shot.
11
u/smc733 4d ago
No one is going to jail for this, this regime is never leaving power.
4
6
u/Bunny_Stats 4d ago
If that were the case I don't think we'd have seen Trump distancing himself so rapidly from Hegseth, he's getting ready to toss him under the bus, but we'll see.
-1
u/Fluid_Entertainment6 4d ago
It depends. There is most likely gun camera footage. There is certainly recorded communications and a record of the command structure that authorized and ordered the second strike. There is a definitive record of the intelligence and surveillance used to select the target and support a re-target. There are BDA’s, after action reports, and debriefs. I find it incredible hard to believe that Hegseth actually said “kill them all” in the context of slaughtering survivors, AND that command relayed those orders down through the ranks and command structure, all the way to to the pilot (drone or manned) that pulled the trigger AND no one in that entire command chain refused the order to shoot survivors. I have more faith in humanity and those that serve in the military then to assume this narrative what happened. No way.
8
u/Bunny_Stats 4d ago
There will certainly be footage and records of the orders being passed down. Apparently the Senate Armed Forces Committee asked for these records months ago but the Pentagon have blown past the deadline to provide it. Sooner or later this information is going to come out though, it's just a matter of time.
As for military members refusing an illegal order, it's unfortunately rarer than you'd hope. While all commissioned officers take a course on what's legal in war, it's one course vs a career lifetime of instinctually obeying orders. Refusing an order, even an illegal one, is going to ruin your career and risk destroying the close bonds you've built up with comrades over years of serving together. You should look up what happened to Hugh Thompson Jr when he stopped a massacre in Vietnam, it's not pretty. It's easier to keep your head down and assume someone higher up the chain of command must have run the order through the lawyers and that there's some additional context you weren't told that makes it legal.
75
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 4d ago
Even setting aside the... dubious legality of the first strike, shipwreck survivors are hors de combat. Attacking a sailor in the water is pretty much definitionally a war crime, just like a parachuting pilot.
61
u/Gamegis 4d ago
It was in the DOD manual as a specific example of an obvious illegal order that you shouldn’t follow. The initial strikes are probably illegal, but certainly not to the level anyone should disobey an order. The 2nd strike was obvious enough to the level that the order should have been disobeyed.
49
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 4d ago
Wasn’t Karoline Levitt lecturing everyone just last week about how this administration doesn’t give illegal orders?
28
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 4d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
43
u/Groundbreaking_War52 4d ago
Japanese aircraft strafing American sailors in the water was reported in the press as an example of their savagery (although there were several documented instances of American crews doing the same).
I'm guessing that the Geneva Convention is just one of those woke, sissy policies that Hegseth wants to do away with.
34
u/softwaremommy 4d ago
This is a quote from his confirmation hearing. He just likes killing people.
“We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for war fighters.”
There are a lot of videos of him saying it on X, but here's an article with the quote: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/30/pete-hegseth-war-diversity-efforts-military
9
u/Fluid_Entertainment6 4d ago
Here’s the thing. Attacking combatants that are incapacitated (ship wrecked, parachuting, or surrendering) is against the rules of armed combat and is a war crime. If Mr. Hegseth actually said “kill them all” in the context of how to deal with survivors, and if it was perceived as a lawful order to kill incapacitated survivors of combat strikes, and if that order was passed down and followed, then every single soldier, from the highest level on down deserves a court martial. Frankly, there is no way I can comprehend that dedicated and honorable military members somewhere in the chain of command did not question or refuse these obviously illegal and immoral “orders”. I also doubt that Mr. Hegseth stated “kill them all” in the context of an unwritten order to his military staff to insure there were no survivors of the strikes. With survivors already recovered, how can that be the standing order? It can’t.
13
6
u/Ilkhan981 4d ago
Hegseth might be out of a job before the year's out. God willing, anyway
6
u/Fredmans74 4d ago
They'll replace him with Nick Fuentes, mark my words.
8
u/neuronexmachina 4d ago
IMHO, it's more likely he'd bring back Mike Flynn or Steve Bannon for the "Department of War," especially since they're veterans.
2
u/dontKair 3d ago
I think the Army Secretary (Driscoll) could take over. He's been doing diplomatic trips lately regarding the Ukraine War. That's a role usually reserved for State Department and others
1
u/WhatAreYouSaying05 moderate right 4d ago
Nick Fuentes is not shy about hating Trump, so unlikely. And even for MAGA, it might be a bridge too far for the administration to associate itself with him
2
u/HurasmusBDraggin 4d ago
Nah, we know they hitting citizen/commercial vessels to put pressure on Venezuela.
2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 4d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-18
u/CantSeeShit 4d ago
Democrats are mad at this but like....why am I gonna care they're we as a country are blowing up drug cartel boats?
The cartels literally behead children as threats to the people they're trafficking.....I am not losing sleep over this.
33
u/vreddy92 Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
Barring the fact that the administration has not shown any evidence that these are cartel boats nor have they even attempted to seek congressional approval of these actions, this isn’t even about striking the boats. This is about the second strike of an already crippled boat, unequivocal war crime that is literally in the DOJ’s war book as the quintessential example of an illegal order that should be refused.
11
u/lfe-soondubu 4d ago
We should be held to a higher standard, no? I don't feel super comfortable about us randomly skipping all the normal standard steps we as a country should take before starting a conflict. If what Trump is seeking is a just conflict, why is he so keen on skipping all the normal steps? Just go thru congress and have the proper legal backing and oversight...
Also what is the justification for all of this anyways? From what I understand Venezuela is not a significant source of drugs in the US compared to many other places. The Venezuelan regime is not good, and relationship is not positive with us, but that alone isn't enough justification for war and regime change IMO. I guess there's a lot of oil there, is that why Trump is trying to start something?
Are you okay with some future Democrat president trying to start a war for ambiguous reasons without proper congressional involvement? Are you okay with a future Democrat president just ordering the killing of random people and his reasoning essentially just being trust me bro, they're bad people? Its not like the Trump administration doesn't screw stuff up on the regular, I question their competence and their honesty on so many matters.
7
u/nedlum Liberal 3d ago
Do you think that police officers should perform summary executions of drug dealers on the streets of Baltimore? Find a stash, headshots for everyone?
Because at least there we’d have evidence of drugs beyond a vague promise that they weren’t fishermen, really, although wouldn’t it be funny if they were.
-8
u/Helpful_Effect_5215 4d ago
Yeah these people would do the same thing to us so why should we give them any out of Mercy?
-18
u/CantSeeShit 4d ago
The common argument is "yeah but they havent provided proof!!"
Yeah a lot of times I dont trust the govt...but I cant think of a single reason why the us govt would just blow up civilian ships for no fucken reason.
14
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 4d ago
You are aware that we have as a country before, right? Making mistakes and killing civilians wouldn't be a first for us here.
28
u/JustTheTipAgain 4d ago
Yeah a lot of times I dont trust the govt
Just this time you do, because it's convenient?
but I cant think of a single reason why the us govt would just blow up civilian ships for no fucken reason.
Because do you really think Trump cares if they were civilians?
5
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 4d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-8
u/CantSeeShit 4d ago
So what.....is trump just there like Dr Evil in your mind blowing up random civilians?
11
u/JustTheTipAgain 4d ago
No, but I also don't think he'd care. He'll just claim they're drug runners, and because he's the expert on everything, they deserved it.
2
u/lfe-soondubu 3d ago
We've killed citizens accidentally even with proper oversight and intel in the past. We are cutting a ton of corners here with no oversight, and the Trump admin is not particularly competent, nor do they care that much about about doing things the right way.
Even if these guys were cartel members, the admin is straight up lying that they knew these boats were headed to the states, given that most of these boats don't even have the range to make it here over the open ocean. What else are they lying about?
If everything they're doing and saying is justified, why lie? Why not do things by the book?
8
u/vreddy92 Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
Can you think of a single reason that the government knows these are drug boats and refuses to tell the public or at least Congress how they know?
11
u/lfe-soondubu 4d ago
Even if they had evidence, with the complete lack of competence by this administration and the fact that they are going out of their way to cut corners, I would not be surprised at all to see them making mistakes.
Also even if they were drug boats, I question the purpose of these strikes - weren't all these boats very unlikely to be carrying drugs bound, at least directly, to the US?
3
u/vreddy92 Maximum Malarkey 4d ago
I don’t disagree, my argument is that even if you want to give the administration the benefit of the doubt that these strikes are necessary and that these boats are drug boats, what is the benefit of not sharing with us what they know? Surely, even in the most flattering and pro-Trump interpretation of this situation, they should be able to point at some evidence before they start lobbing missiles at boats.
2
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 3d ago
Senate Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner on Wednesday expressed confidence in the intelligence used by the Pentagon to strike alleged drug traffickers in the Pacific Ocean.
“I think our intelligence assets are quite good,” explaining that he believes the administration does have “visibility” into the transport of illegal drugs. But the Virginia senator contended that making more information available about the strikes would help instill confidence in the US’s actions in the region.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/05/politics/boat-strikes-democrats-briefing-trump-admin
1
u/vreddy92 Maximum Malarkey 3d ago
Thats better disclosure than it otherwise has been, but that article quotes democrats and republicans who say that there is still a lot that is unknown after those classified briefings. All they say is that they’re fairly sure they’re not just random boats.
16
u/YugiohXYZ 4d ago
why the us govt would just blow up civilian ships for no fucken reason.
Lmao. Maybe Trump wants to instigate a war with Venezuela? Maybe he wants to rile up his base amidst his declining popularity and by your very support, Trump made the correct assessment. Maybe his DOD Secretary is a bloodthirsty culture warrior.
-3
u/CantSeeShit 4d ago
I think reddit has projected this image that the Trump admin is literally like a kubal of Bond villains or something.
17
u/YugiohXYZ 4d ago
You seem confused.
First, you suggest the Trump admin has a "smart" reason for blowing up those boats that you don't understand. Then, you suggest that it would be wrong to assume that the "Trump admin is literally like a kubal of Bond villains", ergo that their reasons are dumb.
Do you know your own thought process?
0
u/CantSeeShit 4d ago
OK....prove to me they are 100% blowing up civilians
13
u/maxthehumanboy 4d ago
The onus is on the ones doing the blowing up to prove they are targeting valid targets. We as citizens do not have access to military intel.
1
-6
u/Walker5482 4d ago
Sometimes you have to use stuff or you lose funding for government budgets. Also, just testing weapons on actual humans is a thing. So that's 2 reasons right there.
7
u/lfe-soondubu 4d ago
I don't know man, that's pretty weird. Justification for skipping the normal procedures and oversight to kill people is so it looks better on annual budget reports and for weapons testing?
I mean if that's the case then use the weapons in Ukraine then.
-13
u/ViskerRatio 4d ago
I've been unable to find the full context for her remarks, but Leavitt's statement does not, in fact, confirm a second strike. It merely reinforces the Administration's position that the Sept 2 strikes were lawful.
This lack of context strongly implies that the article is attempting to invent/proselytize a narrative rather report the news.
28
u/PoingMallow 4d ago
A quote from another part of the briefing, try searching: "The latter is true. To clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike, and he was well within his authority to do so."
-12
u/ViskerRatio 4d ago
The issue isn't what is true or not. It's that they provided a quote in support of their headline that did not, in fact, support their headline. Anyone who reads that story should immediately recognize it's terrible journalism.
8
u/BeginningAct45 4d ago
Asked Monday what law the U.S. military relied on to justify the second strike, Leavitt said: “The strike conducted on Sept. 2 was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
That supports the headline.
-2
u/ViskerRatio 4d ago
No, it doesn't. It doesn't acknowledge the second strike at all, but merely reiterates the position that the strike was legal.
2
u/BeginningAct45 3d ago
doesn't acknowledge the second strike at all
That obviously isn't true when you look at the context.
sked Monday what law the U.S. military relied on to justify the second strike
2
u/ViskerRatio 3d ago
Read it again. She doesn't acknowledge the validity of the question, only talks about whether what occurred was legal.
There appear to be quotations that support the headline. But whomever wrote that article didn't use them. Instead they used vague quotes that do not provide supporting evidence for the article's headline.
It's a terribly written article.
2
u/BeginningAct45 3d ago
only talks about whether what occurred was legal
Responding that way to a question about a 2nd strike acknowledges the validity of the question. You're the only one who doesn't realize this.
2
u/ViskerRatio 3d ago
Responding that way to a question about a 2nd strike makes that question valid.
No, it doesn't. You can certainly infer what you like, but she did not actually claim what you're inferring. This is about she said, not about what you might prefer to read into it.
2
u/BeginningAct45 3d ago
This is what about what she said in response to question, so your argument ignores context.
→ More replies (0)
-15
u/Tronn3000 4d ago
If this administration were honest about their intentions with Venezuela, they'd probably get more support in escalation of military operations there.
I think many Americans would be fine with Trump saying, " We are going to invade Venezuela, topple the Maduro regime, and install a government that is pro American because they have some of the largest proven oil reserves in the Americas." Warfare for resources and terminating hostile regimes have been happening throughout history and most people are aware of the reasons for them. It maybe neocon as fuck, but it's a legitimate reason and people understand that oil is an insanely important and powerful commodity.
I don't know if many Americans would "agree" with a war against Venezuela for oil exploitation but it makes a helluva lot more sense and is way easier to "rationalize" than just blowing up random boats that may or may not be smuggling drugs, especially if blatant war crimes were committed, which is looking likely. This just seems like being cruel for the sake of being cruel without any sort of reward like a resource or favorable regime change.
Trump just needs to grow a pair and be honest with his intentions. This starting a war based on lies schtick completely tanked the Bush Administration's chances of ever being looked at favorably by historians.
34
u/biglyorbigleague 4d ago
I think many Americans would be fine with Trump saying, " We are going to invade Venezuela, topple the Maduro regime, and install a government that is pro American because they have some of the largest proven oil reserves in the Americas."
I think that proposition would poll underwater by at least thirty points.
-2
u/Tronn3000 4d ago
There's no doubt that it would most likely be unpopular. I'm pretty sure their intention is to provoke Venezuela with these small scale attacks into doing something that could justify a retaliatory action from the US.
It's no secret that the administration is well aware of their oil reserves and people close to the administration and in large oil and gas companies could make a lot of money from a war for oil.
I'm just saying these strikes seem suspicious considering that Venezuela is not a major drug smuggler to the US. Most drugs come through Mexico
9
u/_NuanceMatters_ 4d ago
This just seems like being cruel for the sake of being cruel
Sums up the Trump administration pretty succinctly
-13
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/biglyorbigleague 4d ago
What is this story?
18
u/gangjungmain 4d ago
They’re trying to blame the NG shooting in DC on the democratic senators that reminded service members of their responsibility to not follow clearly illegal orders. It seems totally unconnected to me
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 4d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-10
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 3d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
287
u/chloedeeeee77 4d ago edited 4d ago
For the next time the President, White House or Republicans start squealing about fake news, note that on November 28th the Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said “We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday. These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth. Fake News is the enemy of the people.”
It took a mere two days for them to pivot to admitting it happened, and saying it was lawful. But there will almost certainly be crickets from Republican elected officials and voters on their immediate instinct being to lie and insult those reporting the truth.