By AFP
December 1, 2025
Since the initial strikes in early September, over 20 more vessels have been targeted in the Caribbeana and eastern Pacific, including this boat in mid-September - Copyright US President Donald Trump's TRUTH Social account/AFP HANDOUT
W.G. DUNLOP
A US admiral acting under the authority of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a “double-tap” military operation that targeted survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug smuggling boat, the White House said Monday.
The legality of the Trump administration’s deadly strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific has already been questioned, and reports of the follow-up attack on survivors have triggered further accusations of a possible war crime.
A total of 11 people were killed in the two strikes in early September, the first in a months-long military campaign that has so far left more than 80 dead.
President Donald Trump’s administration insists it is effectively at war with alleged “narco-terrorists,” and the White House said Admiral Frank Bradley, who currently leads US Special Operations Command, had acted legally and properly in ordering the second strike on the survivors.
Bradley “worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told journalists.
Hegseth “authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” she said.
US media reported last week that an initial September 2 strike left alive two people who were killed in a subsequent attack to fulfill Hegseth’s orders, but Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell insisted that “this entire narrative was false.”
Subsequent strikes that left survivors were followed by search-and-rescue efforts that recovered two people in one case and failed to find another later in October.
– ‘Over the line’ –
Hegseth has insisted that the strikes — so far conducted in international waters — are legal, saying in a recent post on X that the military action is “in compliance with the law of armed conflict — and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”
However, the military action on September 2 would appear to run afoul of the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual, which states: “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
Democratic Senators Jacky Rosen and Chris Van Hollen have said the September 2 strikes may be a war crime, while another lawmaker from the party, Senator Mark Kelly, called Monday for Congress to investigate.
“I’m concerned that if there were, in fact, as reported, survivors clinging to a damaged vessel, that that could be over a line,” the former fighter pilot and astronaut told a news conference.
Kelly was one of six lawmakers who released a video last month saying “illegal orders” can be refused — a move that infuriated Trump and sparked a Pentagon probe into the “potentially unlawful comments” by the retired Navy officer.
Trump has deployed the world’s biggest aircraft and an array of other military assets to the Caribbean, insisting they are there for counter-narcotics operations.
Regional tensions have flared as a result of the strikes and the military buildup, with Venezuela’s leftist leader Nicolas Maduro accusing Washington of using drug trafficking as a pretext for “imposing regime change” in Caracas.
Maduro, whose re-election last year was rejected by Washington as fraudulent, insists there is no drug cultivation in Venezuela, which he says is used as a trafficking route for Colombian cocaine against its will.
Daniel Hampton
December 1, 2025
RAW STORY
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stunned observers Monday night with his decision to distance himself from a controversial military strike that reportedly killed people who survived the administration's initial strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.
The strike in question occurred on Sept. 2 and targeted suspected drug boats near Venezuela. Hegseth was reported to have been directly involved in the controversial operation. After the initial strike, survivors were found clinging to wreckage.
A source with direct knowledge claimed Hegseth gave an order to "kill everybody," which the military carried out. The strike led to significant political fallout, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) notably refusing to directly back Hegseth earlier Monday. Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused Hegseth of being a "known liar" on CNN, and retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner described it as a "tremendous failure in planning."
The White House has shifted its narrative, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt eventually confirming that Admiral Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley ordered the second strike, claiming it was "well within his authority."
And on Monday night, Hegseth himself appeared to point the finger at Bradley.
"Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this @DeptofWar says we have the back of our warriors — we mean it," he wrote on X.
Observers were taken aback by the Defense secretary's post, with many social media critics likening it to Hegseth throwing Bradley under the bus.
CNN reporter Haley Britzky flagged Hegseth's specific phrasing.
“And the combat decisions he has made," she said.
Sam Stein of The Bulwark wrote on X, "Hegseth putting the decision all on Bradley even as he defends the decision."
Tom Nichols, staff writer at The Atlantic, mocked on X, "Let's make one thing crystal clear: That guy over there is the guy you want."
CNN's Natasha Bertrand noted on X, "Hegseth again distancing himself from responsibility over the Sept 2 strike, emphasizing that it was a combat decision Adm. Bradley made— but that he supports."
Dan Pfeiffer, Co-host of Pod Save America, wrote on X, "And the blame shifting has begun..."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) simply wrote on X, "oh boy."
"Admiral, you’re a stand-up guy. Be a real shame if you spoke up and something happened to your pardon," mocked social media user Ryan Clarke on X.
Former Republican Travis McColley wrote on X, "Quick reminder to all in the administration. They will have your back until you no longer have value. You will not know when that is approaching, but you will know when it happens."
Fox host accuses Trump's Pentagon chief of throwing top military official under the bus
Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume on Fox Business on September 16, 2025 (Image: Screengrab via Fox Business / YouTube)
Fox News host Brit Hume may be a longtime colleague of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (who was a former part-time weekend host on the network), but that didn't stop him from taking a jab at President Donald Trump's top military official.
On Monday, as blowback continues to escalate in response to a Washington Post report about Hegseth supposedly ordering that two survivors of a destroyed boat be killed, Hegseth posted a statement to his official X account that appeared to praise Admiral Frank M. Bradley. While the Post's sources said Hegseth gave the order to "kill everybody," the White House clarified that Adm. Bradley — the commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) — is the one who actually approved the secondary strike on September 2, 2025 that killed the two survivors.
"Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100 percent support," Hegseth posted. "I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us."
The statement was almost immediately scrutinized by various journalists, experts and commentators, including Hume. The conservative network's chief political analyst quote-posted Hegseth and argued the defense secretary was demonstrating "how to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him."
Atlantic contributor Tom Nichols — who is also a retired professor at the U.S. Naval War College — also piled on, tweeting: "'Let's make one thing crystal clear: That guy over there is the guy you want.'"
Former Fox News, CNN and MSNBC journalist David Shuster accused Hegseth of "stabbing the admiral in the back," and suggested the Pentagon leader "try taking some responsibility." Vinny Green, who is the former chief operating officer of fact-checking website Snopes, responded to Hegseth's post with a GIF of South Park character Eric Cartman getting thrown under a bus.
"Wow. You cook up a cruel and ineffective strategy based on illegal extrajudicial killings (i.e. murder), force the military to carry it out based on a nonsensical [White House] legal interpretation, then throw the commander under the bus at the first blowback. Incredible," wrote Max Hoffman, who is a foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Hegseth just sent a 'chilling signal' to the Defense Department: senator
Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume on Fox Business on September 16, 2025 (Image: Screengrab via Fox Business / YouTube)
December 01, 2025
ALTERNET
Fox News host Brit Hume may be a longtime colleague of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (who was a former part-time weekend host on the network), but that didn't stop him from taking a jab at President Donald Trump's top military official.
On Monday, as blowback continues to escalate in response to a Washington Post report about Hegseth supposedly ordering that two survivors of a destroyed boat be killed, Hegseth posted a statement to his official X account that appeared to praise Admiral Frank M. Bradley. While the Post's sources said Hegseth gave the order to "kill everybody," the White House clarified that Adm. Bradley — the commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) — is the one who actually approved the secondary strike on September 2, 2025 that killed the two survivors.
"Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100 percent support," Hegseth posted. "I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us."
The statement was almost immediately scrutinized by various journalists, experts and commentators, including Hume. The conservative network's chief political analyst quote-posted Hegseth and argued the defense secretary was demonstrating "how to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him."
Atlantic contributor Tom Nichols — who is also a retired professor at the U.S. Naval War College — also piled on, tweeting: "'Let's make one thing crystal clear: That guy over there is the guy you want.'"
Former Fox News, CNN and MSNBC journalist David Shuster accused Hegseth of "stabbing the admiral in the back," and suggested the Pentagon leader "try taking some responsibility." Vinny Green, who is the former chief operating officer of fact-checking website Snopes, responded to Hegseth's post with a GIF of South Park character Eric Cartman getting thrown under a bus.
"Wow. You cook up a cruel and ineffective strategy based on illegal extrajudicial killings (i.e. murder), force the military to carry it out based on a nonsensical [White House] legal interpretation, then throw the commander under the bus at the first blowback. Incredible," wrote Max Hoffman, who is a foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Hegseth just sent a 'chilling signal' to the Defense Department: senator
Matthew Chapman
December 1, 2025
RAW STORY
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth gave a "chilling" message to all the generals working beneath him in his response to the exploding scandal over the killing of unarmed shipwreck survivors, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told CNN's Erin Burnett on Monday's edition of "OutFront."
The killings, first reported last week, have been widely condemned by experts as war crimes. Hegseth's response has been twofold: to categorically stand by the order, but also to claim that it wasn't even his order in the first place.
"So Secretary Hegseth has just posted something that I wanted to ask you about," said Burnett. "He said: 'Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this @DeptofWar says we have the back of our warriors — we mean it.'"
"Okay, let me just translate this into, he's pinning this on Bradley, okay?" said Burnett. "He's saying that that's — that's what that's about, right? I mean, where do you see this heading?"
"He is passing the buck," said Murphy. "He sort of sees the freight train that is coming, right? That both Republicans and Democrats are coming to the conclusion that this was an illegal, wildly immoral act. And he is shifting the blame. It's the opposite of the buck stops here. And, boy, it's a chilling signal to everyone in the chain of command that the Secretary of Defense does not have your back."
"Now, in this case, it seems likely that he actually did give the order that he gave the order to kill everyone on that boat, and those in the chain of command were simply following his orders," Murphy added. "But he is basically telling everyone, all of his generals, all of the professional staff at the Department of Defense, that I'm going to save myself if things get tough. And that's just devastating for American national security."
Trump defense secretary crossed 'a bright legal line': constitutional law expert
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gestures as he meets with El Salvador Defense Minister Rene Merino Monroy at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
The White House on Monday confirmed prior reports that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed U.S. forces to fire a second time on survivors of an initial strike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea. Writing for the New Republic, former U.S. Attorney and constitutional law expert Harry Litman accused Hegseth of breaking a "foundational" rule of warfighting and crossing a "bright legal line."
The Trump administration has been engaged in a widely criticized campaign of strikes on boats in the Caribbean, claiming with little to no evidence that the crafts are linked to Venezuelan drug smuggling. According to a report from the Washington Post, on September 2, U.S. forces fired a second time against survivors of an initial strike, in line with an order from Hegseth to "kill them all." Such a strike would, according to legal experts, very likely amount to a war crime, with U.S. laws specifically singling out attacks on "shipwrecked" individuals as a clear example of an unlawful military action.
White Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday confirmed that the strike occurred, but also appeared to pass direct blame from Hegseth to a subordinate officer, Admiral Frank M. Bradley, and insisted that the strikes were conducted in accordance with laws governing armed conflicts.
In his piece from Monday, Litman characterized this incident in unsparing terms, calling the reports "like something out of Apocalypse Now" and arguing that the "the second strike appears to cross one of the clearest lines in the law of armed conflict."
"The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual prohibits declaring 'no quarter,' forbids conducting operations 'on the basis that there shall be no survivors,'" Litman wrote. "And states unequivocally that 'persons placed hors de combat [out of the fight] may not be made the object of attack,' including those incapacitated by shipwreck, unless they commit a fresh hostile act or attempt escape.
"This rule is foundational," he stressed.
Litman further wrote that the Trump administration's efforts to investigate six Democratic lawmakers over a video urging military members to disobey "unlawful orders," when contrasted against the reports about the second boat strike, create a grim reminder of some of the darkest chapters in U.S. history, when the government opted to go after people who spoke about official misconduct rather than the misconduct itself.
"It’s an all too familiar — and invariably regretted — story in American constitutional life," Litman wrote. "From World War I sedition prosecutions to McCarthy-era investigations to parts of the post-9/11 surveillance apparatus, some of the country’s worst civil liberties violations began with the assumption that dissent was a threat. In nearly every case, the government insisted at the time that extraordinary circumstances justified extraordinary measures. In nearly every case, history delivered a harsher verdict."
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gestures as he meets with El Salvador Defense Minister Rene Merino Monroy at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
December 01, 2025
ALTERNET
The White House on Monday confirmed prior reports that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed U.S. forces to fire a second time on survivors of an initial strike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea. Writing for the New Republic, former U.S. Attorney and constitutional law expert Harry Litman accused Hegseth of breaking a "foundational" rule of warfighting and crossing a "bright legal line."
The Trump administration has been engaged in a widely criticized campaign of strikes on boats in the Caribbean, claiming with little to no evidence that the crafts are linked to Venezuelan drug smuggling. According to a report from the Washington Post, on September 2, U.S. forces fired a second time against survivors of an initial strike, in line with an order from Hegseth to "kill them all." Such a strike would, according to legal experts, very likely amount to a war crime, with U.S. laws specifically singling out attacks on "shipwrecked" individuals as a clear example of an unlawful military action.
White Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday confirmed that the strike occurred, but also appeared to pass direct blame from Hegseth to a subordinate officer, Admiral Frank M. Bradley, and insisted that the strikes were conducted in accordance with laws governing armed conflicts.
In his piece from Monday, Litman characterized this incident in unsparing terms, calling the reports "like something out of Apocalypse Now" and arguing that the "the second strike appears to cross one of the clearest lines in the law of armed conflict."
"The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual prohibits declaring 'no quarter,' forbids conducting operations 'on the basis that there shall be no survivors,'" Litman wrote. "And states unequivocally that 'persons placed hors de combat [out of the fight] may not be made the object of attack,' including those incapacitated by shipwreck, unless they commit a fresh hostile act or attempt escape.
"This rule is foundational," he stressed.
Litman further wrote that the Trump administration's efforts to investigate six Democratic lawmakers over a video urging military members to disobey "unlawful orders," when contrasted against the reports about the second boat strike, create a grim reminder of some of the darkest chapters in U.S. history, when the government opted to go after people who spoke about official misconduct rather than the misconduct itself.
"It’s an all too familiar — and invariably regretted — story in American constitutional life," Litman wrote. "From World War I sedition prosecutions to McCarthy-era investigations to parts of the post-9/11 surveillance apparatus, some of the country’s worst civil liberties violations began with the assumption that dissent was a threat. In nearly every case, the government insisted at the time that extraordinary circumstances justified extraordinary measures. In nearly every case, history delivered a harsher verdict."
'It's a confession': Conservative lawyers call new Hegseth comment an 'admission of guilt'
David McAfee
November 30, 2025
RAW ST0RY
Pete Hegseth (Reuters)
Pete Hegseth was put on notice over the weekend by two conservative lawyers, including a former prosecutor, who said the Defense Secretary's defense to a major new scandal "makes no legal sense" and is not really "a defense."
Observers' eyebrows were raised after it was reported by the Washington Post in a bombshell story that Hegseth ordered the killing of two survivors of one of controversial drug vessel bombings. Some analysts questioned whether it was murder, or even a war crime.
Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, recently said he has no love for the “craven video” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and five Democrats released to the public advising military members to ignore illegal orders. At the same time, McCarthy suggested President Donald Trump’s executive power abuses in reacting to it represent a whole “new level” of threat.
Now, in an essay late Saturday night, the conservative weighed in on Hegseth's new scandal.
"If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say 'at best' because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act or war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict," the attorney wrote.
McCarthy goes even further, suggesting that, "even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, it is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight. It is not permitted, under the laws and customs of honorable warfare, to order that no quarter be given — to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight."
He continued, writing, "The operation, led by SEAL Team 6, was directed from Fort Bragg, N.C., by Admiral Frank M. 'Mitch' Bradley, then the head of Joint Special Operations Command. Admiral Bradley is said to have ordered the attack against the two survivors of the first strike in order to comply with Hegseth’s directive to kill the boat’s operators."
While Bradley reportedly claimed "the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo," and Hegseth issued a response saying these were always meant to be deadly attacks, McCarthy isn't sold.
"Neither Hegseth’s statement nor the explanation attributed to Bradley... makes legal sense," the former prosecutor wrote. "The laws of war, as they are incorporated into federal law, make lethal force unlawful if it is used under certain circumstances. Hence, it cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one’s objective was 'lethal, kinetic strikes.'"
Conservative attorney George Conway shared McCarthy's essay and wrote, "Indeed, it's a confession and admission of guilt to heinous crimes."
Read the full piece here (subscription required).
David McAfee
November 30, 2025
RAW ST0RY
Pete Hegseth (Reuters)
Pete Hegseth was put on notice over the weekend by two conservative lawyers, including a former prosecutor, who said the Defense Secretary's defense to a major new scandal "makes no legal sense" and is not really "a defense."
Observers' eyebrows were raised after it was reported by the Washington Post in a bombshell story that Hegseth ordered the killing of two survivors of one of controversial drug vessel bombings. Some analysts questioned whether it was murder, or even a war crime.
Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, recently said he has no love for the “craven video” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and five Democrats released to the public advising military members to ignore illegal orders. At the same time, McCarthy suggested President Donald Trump’s executive power abuses in reacting to it represent a whole “new level” of threat.
Now, in an essay late Saturday night, the conservative weighed in on Hegseth's new scandal.
"If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say 'at best' because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act or war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict," the attorney wrote.
McCarthy goes even further, suggesting that, "even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, it is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight. It is not permitted, under the laws and customs of honorable warfare, to order that no quarter be given — to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight."
He continued, writing, "The operation, led by SEAL Team 6, was directed from Fort Bragg, N.C., by Admiral Frank M. 'Mitch' Bradley, then the head of Joint Special Operations Command. Admiral Bradley is said to have ordered the attack against the two survivors of the first strike in order to comply with Hegseth’s directive to kill the boat’s operators."
While Bradley reportedly claimed "the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo," and Hegseth issued a response saying these were always meant to be deadly attacks, McCarthy isn't sold.
"Neither Hegseth’s statement nor the explanation attributed to Bradley... makes legal sense," the former prosecutor wrote. "The laws of war, as they are incorporated into federal law, make lethal force unlawful if it is used under certain circumstances. Hence, it cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one’s objective was 'lethal, kinetic strikes.'"
Conservative attorney George Conway shared McCarthy's essay and wrote, "Indeed, it's a confession and admission of guilt to heinous crimes."
Read the full piece here (subscription required).
No comments:
Post a Comment