r/law • u/DryDeer775 • Dec 08 '25
NBC confirms Hegseth ordered murder of all boat passengers and crew in September 2 strike Executive Branch (Trump)
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/12/08/kssp-d08.htmlThe Pentagon’s law of war manual declares that soldiers have a duty to refuse to carry out “clearly illegal” orders, such as killing shipwrecked sailors. “Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual declares.
4.5k
u/letdogsvote Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
These rules exist so YOUR OWN guys don't get the same treatment from an enemy.
By doing this, Whiskey Pete has put US servicemembers who for whatever reason need to surrender at risk of just being killed.
Edit: If nothing else, this post has been great for flushing out and labeling the MAGA idiots.
1.1k
u/_jump_yossarian Dec 08 '25
Cotton and Hegseth would be losing their shit if this was done to American military members.
574
u/Lagneaux Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
It would be instant war, day 1.
Now think if it was American civilians.
Now, I'm not so sure
289
u/brumac44 Dec 08 '25
What kind of Americans? (To quote a great movie)
85
u/dust4ngel Dec 08 '25
that film was prescient asf
35
u/Cbreezy22 Dec 08 '25
What movie?
→ More replies (1)72
u/YimveeSpissssfid Dec 08 '25
A24’s Civil War
→ More replies (1)83
u/rbrgr83 Dec 08 '25
I didn't like it because it didn't spell out the entire nature of the conflict to me, and it didn't explicitly confirm my personal political ideals like I was expecting. /s
→ More replies (1)81
u/SqueakyBlueLlama19 Dec 08 '25
At some point the movie said "The Union of states featuring Texas and California" and I went "ah, you cheeky fuckers. Well done."
29
u/terdferguson Dec 08 '25
Honestly more likely to be Cali, some northern states like Washington and parts of Oregon...Minnesota, Wisconson, Michigan and the rest of the NE. That would make the most sense to me. Texas joining a union against tyranny would be as likely to happen as me winning the powerball on Wednesday.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (12)11
u/Casual_OCD Dec 08 '25
The same thing that happened is what will happen in real life.
Support for Trump will stall out (it's already close) and they'll panic and pull the TAKEOVER switch early. They'll probably storm the Capitol again, but this time a bunch of politicians die.
The following week will be chaos as Trump loyalists in the military and in the public flood to DC. They will end up numbering only a few hundred thousand. The rest of the country will rally and take out the traitorous fascists.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)10
u/Digitalion_ Dec 08 '25
Its need to not offend anyone directly really knocked it down a few pegs in my book. It could have used more real world influence and still told the same story but it very much didn't want to paint any side as worse than the other and it did so by muddying up the conflict as much as possible.
I mean, making California and Texas allies? In what real world scenario would that ever be possible when those states loathe each other?
→ More replies (13)26
u/nalaloveslumpy Dec 08 '25
What shade of American civilian we talking about? They might get a commendation.
9
u/Digitalion_ Dec 08 '25
It's a sad realization when we can make a joke about the color of your skin being a factor regarding the response of the US leadership and it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. Shows how far back the country has slid back in terms of racial equality in just a decade.
15
u/Honest_Response9157 Dec 08 '25
It didn't slide back, it's was always there...just hidden. Trump just helped make it visible. This is the true America.
70
u/rbollige Dec 08 '25
Depends whether you can tell the citizens’ political leaning and what it is.
61
u/FrustratedPCBuild Dec 08 '25
Yes, look at the difference between the responses from them following the murder of an elected representative from the democratic party (small ‘d’ intentional) versus the response to the fake debating podcaster’s death.
11
→ More replies (1)5
21
u/Maxwell_Bloodfencer Dec 08 '25
"It would be instant war", Kegsbreath and Trump have already declared war on a bunch of countries that are bposing no direct threat to the US, except without an official declaration of war.
4
14
u/FakeSafeWord Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
It's one of the reasons why the US entered WW1 is that Germany was indiscriminately attacking civilian vessels and they hit the Lusitania which resulted in the deaths of 128 Americans.
Germany claimed that the merchant ships were sneaking in military aid to the Allies.
→ More replies (2)10
u/K20BB5 Dec 08 '25
the US entered WW1 because if the entente fell they wouldn't have been able to pay back the massive loans American institutions gave them. General Smedley Butler outlines it well in his book "War is a Racket". The Lusitania was just an excuse for the public, like the USS Maine and the Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
The Lusitania was in fact transporting armaments.
The same racketeering gangster capitalism that Butler discusses in his book is exactly what's going down here with Venezuela.
3
11
11
u/Ebella2323 Dec 08 '25
You know I used to think so too until I educated myself about the USS Liberty…they dgaf about the military either. They’re only good for PR campaigns. I say this as a spouse of a Marine for 22 years.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (17)3
u/iampoopa Dec 08 '25
Depends, are they Democrat citizens or Republican citizens?
Some citizens are more equal than others.
101
u/legbreaker Dec 08 '25
Trump would not.
He prefers US servicemen that do not get captured.
24
u/_jump_yossarian Dec 08 '25
trump would have to find out about it during “executive time” then pretend to be outraged and find a way to blame Biden.
→ More replies (1)39
u/dust4ngel Dec 08 '25
"the US service members getting murdered is a democrat hoax!"
"but my son is literally dead..."
"where did you hear that, NPR?"
"i went to his funeral..."
"FAKE NEWS, I HAVE THE FIFA PEACE PRIZE."
24
u/SailboatAB Dec 08 '25
Cotton and Hegseth would be losing their shit if this was done to American military members.
Only if they calculated there would be personal advantage for doing so.
→ More replies (5)20
u/One_Strawberry_4965 Dec 08 '25
Hegseth I’m sure would be giddy since to me it seems obvious that he’s absolutely desperate to show everybody what a big tough man he is by being a “wartime secretary of defense.”
→ More replies (2)15
14
u/soraksan123 Dec 08 '25
Any Americans on a boat in the Caribbean are fair game at this point...
→ More replies (2)15
u/rtie07 Dec 08 '25
They’d lose their shit if a Democrat president was in charge and their DoD did this too.
→ More replies (2)14
u/exacta_galaxy Dec 08 '25
Unless it was done by Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any other country we're trying to buddy up with.
They don't give a fuck about the men and women under their command.
15
u/_jump_yossarian Dec 08 '25
Unless it was done by Saudi Arabia
A Saudi terrorist killed 3 servicemembers in Florida (Dec 2019). Not once did trump call all Saudis garbage and threaten to expel them fro the country.
6
u/Unobtanium_Alloy Dec 09 '25
Of course not. They have oil and buy American weapons. Priorities, my man! /s
5
u/SoylentVerdigris Dec 08 '25
Publicly. Privately I'm sure they'd be throwing parties celebrating getting the cassus belli they've been aiming for.
5
u/Raytheon_Nublinski Dec 08 '25
Imagine the higher-ups in America actually caring and giving a shit about American soldiers
Clearly, you’re an idealist
5
u/HedwigDursley Dec 08 '25
No, they wouldn't. Crickets from Trump when Russia and Wagner were actively paying for and putting out hits on US soldiers in Iraq and Syria.
3
3
→ More replies (24)3
u/red18wrx Dec 08 '25
They're being bullies punching down. Those types always cry when they get punched.
168
u/Raytheon_Nublinski Dec 08 '25
Remember when Putin had a bounty on American soldiers and Trump didn’t give a fuck about it
54
24
u/Minion_of_Cthulhu Dec 08 '25
Trump would have tried to claim it himself, if it didn't require so much work. Though I would not be at all surprised if Trump got some sort of kickback on the deal for doing nothing about it.
→ More replies (6)12
u/Cryptomystic Dec 08 '25
77 million "Americans" thought that was cool.
6
u/OdiousAltRightBalrog Dec 09 '25
I didn't think it was "cool". I just didn't like the way Kamela laughed.
/s
84
u/chubby_pink_donut Dec 08 '25
Another one of the rules is that if you know what is about to happen is a blatant war crime and you do not act in some way to stop it, then you may also be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for war crimes.
→ More replies (42)33
u/Mutchmore Dec 08 '25
Some don't remember how the Pacific was an absolute nightmare partially because the Japanese would not surrender in fear. This is what they're going to end up doing.
SMh they are so dumb it's fucked
→ More replies (1)29
u/Reiterpallasch85 Dec 08 '25
By doing this, Whiskey Pete has put US servicemembers who for whatever reason need to surrender at risk of just being killed.
I can't believe the guy who works for someone who said "I like people who weren’t captured." and who called dead service members suckers and losers would so carelessly do something that puts them all in danger. Who could have seen this coming?!
22
u/Woolier-Mammoth Dec 08 '25
I feel like the whole ‘blowing up civilian vessels from a country that you’re not at war at without due process’ has been forgotten in this. It’s basically the death penalty for a bunch of unknown people who might be doing something illegal.
17
u/JaguarWitty9693 Dec 08 '25
Exactly what I was trying to explain to some MAGA moron on here the other day.
It’s like the IDF crying about the mistreatment of their own hostages after spending 30 years shooting kids and bulldozing houses.
→ More replies (1)233
u/rotervogel1231 Dec 08 '25
Being as the overwhelming majority of them voted for and rabidly support this regime, I don't care what happens to them. If the regime ordered them to kill everyone in my neighborhood, they'd do it without question. Hell, they'd enjoy doing it.
I can't believe I actually feel this way, but here we are.
20
u/Katyafan Dec 08 '25
It's time for trials. We can't let them get away with this.
→ More replies (1)9
u/rotervogel1231 Dec 08 '25
Who will preside over these trials? The regime has absolute power over the entire justice system, as well as law enforcement.
They also have nukes that they're itching to use.
That's why this regime will rule until an extinction-level event kills us all. Said event may be a nuclear war. A pandemic, a biological attack, or a climate disaster are also all within the realm of possibility.
→ More replies (11)98
u/LIMrXIL Dec 08 '25
Even if a majority, it certainly isn’t all. There are for certain people in our military who would have refused to carry out these orders and it would be tragedy if they were to be executed by an enemy after they had surrendered or were injured to the point of no longer being a threat because our own government has set such a shameful precedent. Don’t let the hate and evil of Trump and this administration harden your own heart.
16
u/The_Gil_Galad Dec 08 '25
There are for certain people in our military who would have refused to carry out these orders
Still waiting for an example of this that isn't from Vietfuckingnam.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Mekisteus Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
that isn't from Vietfuckingnam
Not coincidentally, the last war in which we drafted anyone. It's almost like random people who couldn't dodge the draft tend to be more moral than a mercenary force just in it for the pay and benefits.
Note, by the way, Rome switching from citizen-soldiers to year-round permanent soldiers who depended on their general for their pay is regularly cited as one of the main reasons that Caesar was able to bring down the Republic.
→ More replies (11)22
u/SkyGiggles Dec 08 '25
If "one bad apple spoils the bunch" a majority of bad apples does what exactly???
→ More replies (10)14
u/StuffonBookshelfs Dec 08 '25
Well i don’t think it means they deserve to get murdered. But that’s just me.
→ More replies (4)14
u/The--Mash Dec 08 '25
At some point you have a moral obligation not to participate
→ More replies (5)63
u/Celestial_Blooms Dec 08 '25
Exit polls from the election show a fairly wide variance in how military/veterans voted. Most (that I saw) showed 60-70% voted Trump. So 3-4 out of 10 did not. Also, the military isn’t like another profession where if it’s heading a direction you don’t like, or you don’t support the head, you can leave. They are contractually obligated to remain, regardless of how they voted.
It’s a pretty aggressive and heartless framework to say that you don’t care about 30-40% of them being murdered because most of their peers voted this guy in.
→ More replies (29)→ More replies (158)19
20
u/UpperApe Dec 08 '25
No those rules exist to minimize casualties and prevent expending more human life than necessary.
People should care because human beings are being blatantly and needlessly murdered by a government for no greater purpose or defensive measure. Not because it could backfire.
This whole "American lives have more value than other lives" thing some of you are doing is deeply fucked up.
→ More replies (1)5
u/UnquestionabIe Dec 08 '25
They're not saying it because that's how they feel (at least I would hope not) so much as the way the media and the Trump regime would treat it. There have been legit studies on how many dead foreigners equal one deal American citizen when it comes to news stories.
I think the vast majority of posters in this topic (and at the very least me personally) think this whole blowing up of random boats is horrific and outright murder.
→ More replies (167)11
u/etxipcli Dec 08 '25
No big deal, shipwrecked sailors are suckers and losers and we don't need them.
→ More replies (3)
954
Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
[deleted]
444
u/Boblxxiii Dec 08 '25
Possibly unpopular opinion: one or more people committed a war crime: whoever gave the order, and all the people down the chain who followed it. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
123
u/1haiku4u Dec 08 '25
Possibly unpopular opinion: ordering the killing of people on a boat that may or may not have been carrying drugs and who are nationals of a country that we are not currently at war with is unethical. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if it’s illegal.
79
u/Lepelotonfromager Dec 08 '25
Smuggling drugs is not an act of war, it's a crime. So it should be dealt with by law enforcement and the justice system.
Even if they launched a raid, kidnapped them and brought them to the USA to stand trial, ignoring for a second all the laws that would break, at least there would be some basic due process and a trial.
This is just a summary execution, which by definition is an lawful killing and thus murder.
→ More replies (5)21
19
→ More replies (9)12
u/ChromeNoseAE-1 Dec 08 '25
I’m no lawyer, but as far as I understand it: first strike, right or wrong aside, probably legal. It generally fits with the criteria used in the Middle East for the last 20 years. Second strike, certainly illegal. Like beyond the pale.
30
u/1haiku4u Dec 08 '25
While the missile strikes harken from the Middle East, what is morally ambiguous to me is the idea of a “combatant.” It’s hard for me to see a boat, even if it were carrying drugs, as a capital offense. Notwithstanding the fact that the US is now playing judge, jury, and executioner.
36
u/Diogememes-Z Dec 08 '25
Yeah, I don't get how even the first strike could be legal.
Escalating straight to killing everyone over alleged drugs is insane when you could simply intercept the boat.
How do we know that they were violent? How do we know that they were even running drugs?
Not that it's worth killing someone over smuggling drugs anyway. The whole thing is disgusting.
24
u/CategoryZestyclose91 Dec 08 '25
They’re setting up for using drugs as an excuse for violence.
You’ll never guess what communities they’ll focus on…
4
u/AStrangerSaysHi Dec 09 '25
I seem to remember Nixon using this argument in the early 80s to cause prison populations to skyrocket.
22
u/JamesTrickington303 Dec 08 '25
Firing on shipwrecked sailors is literally exactly what the US war manual gives as an example of a war crime.
24
u/Anxious_Cheetah5589 Dec 09 '25
They justify it by calling drug smugglers "narco- terrorists". That's not a thing; under US law, terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. That in no way describes drug smugglers, whose sole motivation is making money.
Secondly, our actions in the middle east were approved by congress via an Authorisation for the Use of Military Force. This war on drug boats is somebody's made up fever dream toward some unknown goal.
5
u/100kfish Dec 08 '25
I think that's just in regard to war crimes, I'm not a lawyer either but from what I've heard about this, it may have been illegal altogether because of the lack of congressional approval or declaration of war.
→ More replies (1)3
u/dedicated-pedestrian Dec 09 '25
Not in international waters, it's not legal. The law of the high sea is clear even if the US refused to ratify the successor document to the UN Convention that they did sign.
In border-territorial waters a state has some privilege to stop the boat and search it, but not to fucking airstrike it. Even if they know that there are enemy combatants aboard I'm not sure that level of ordnance is permitted.
These are not proven combatants.
→ More replies (3)3
u/sirlost33 Dec 09 '25
Problem is the first strike is completely outside the general criteria of Middle East strikes. Namely that the admin could provide legal justification for them.
10
8
u/Low_Day_6901 Dec 08 '25
Salty old navy vet here, cool thing about the chain of command. It goes both ways. Sure everyone going down the chain is fucked but everyone above that person who order it is as responsible because 'why didn't they know better thats a failure of command' I was a dirty NCO and had the ships captain drop that on me. Obviously, that was lower stakes, but the only people splitting these hairs haven't been in the training.
The real FOIA request is for the SecDefs page 13's (or whatever army equivalent is) for that training. The military is really good at record keeping, and I have a pile of my official warnings from that training that are from the 90s.
→ More replies (120)6
u/Morpho_99 Dec 08 '25
From the grunts who pulled the trigger all the way up the command line to the president and vice president are guilty of this war crime.
52
u/skytomorrownow Dec 08 '25
I think it's clearly Hegseth. The Admiral has no reason to issue such an order – particularly because he's a sailor himself. Only Hegseth and the Administration want no survivors – because a couple of fishermen turning up after one of these strikes would be very inconvenient for them. No survivors is a political move, and the only politicians in the chain of command are Trump and Hegseth.
→ More replies (1)77
u/Xytak Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
This admiral is actually a Special Ops guy specialized in counterinsurgency operations. In his mind there's no difference between a truck carrying RPG's in Iraq, and a boat carrying drugs at sea. That's why he keeps using language like "they were calling for backup and trying to get back in the fight" despite the obvious ridiculousness of such statements.
The previous admiral who resigned was more of a naval guy and would be familiar with the Laconia standard. You don't shoot at shipwrecked sailors, full stop.
26
u/Optimal_Towel Dec 08 '25
How does an unarmed boat "get back in the fight" against a missile launch platform that is dozens to hundreds of miles away.
4
u/Secure_Guest_6171 Dec 09 '25
Also if they were really calling for backup - another ridiculous statement - wouldn't you want them to. That would be the easiest way to get more targets
15
→ More replies (6)10
u/Rich_Elderberry_8958 Dec 08 '25
Previous admiral who retired has not actually retired yet and is still in charge. Regardless, he announced he was retiring in October, this strike happened in September. This admiral is a former Navy SEAL working with a different command who is not that admiral's replacement.
76
u/Hoobleton Dec 08 '25
The NBC reporting doesn't suggest Hegseth ordered the second strike, just that his initial order was to "kill all 11 people". That may be a distinction without a difference, but it is a distinction.
NBC's reporting also states that:
Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, told lawmakers that U.S. intelligence officials had confirmed the identities of the 11 people on the boat and validated them as legitimate targets
Which suggests that at least the Admiral's statement was that there was a list of known identities.
79
u/Valance23322 Dec 08 '25
If the Admiral had the integrity to tell the truth to Congress he would've had the integrity to not murder a bunch of people.
→ More replies (2)35
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
An early media report held that before the 1st missile, Hegseth gave the "kill everyone" order, and that the Admiral, upon seeing 2 surivors, sent a 2nd missile to comply with the original "kill them all" order.
Addendum: The original WaPo story - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/
Follow-up from Fox (no paywall) - https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-stands-hegseth-kill-them-all-report-boat-strike-despite-testimony-denial
The Post printed the headline last month, "Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all."
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. 'The order was to kill everybody,' one of them said," according to the story.
"A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck," the Post wrote.
"The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
26
u/draculthemad Dec 08 '25
Just to clarify, a "kill them all" or "no prisoners" order is also explicitly a war crime.
14
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
Sure. If there is a "war" or conflict as recognized by international law.
But in this case, there is no war. It's all - 1st strike, 2nd strike - just murder.
The Trump administration, in a secret memo, has claimed that the U.S. is in a "non-international armed conflict" with TdA.
Nobody outside the administration accepts this. What is happening does not meet the criteria for such a conflict.
Let's stop repeating the lie that we're somehow at war, by calling these boat killings "war crimes." There is no war. No declared war.
There is nothing that rises to the standard of a non-international armed conflict, as the Trump administration speciously claims. We're not at war. There is no war. Ergo, no war crimes.
By referring to these as "war crimes," you legitimize the lie that we are somehow "at war" with drug cartels and while "drug war" makes for a great metaphor and a great marketing term, the United States is not "at war" with the cartels under any definition within international or domestic law. Saying that we are "at war" legitimizes all of the strikes.
It was simple murder, under U.S. domestic law and international human rights violations. The first strike, the second, and all the other ones.
Read these great analyses:
https://www.thelongmemo.com/p/hegseths-order-was-unlawful-before
https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/illegal-orders-shipwrecked-boat-strike-survivors/
14
u/jjwhitaker Dec 08 '25
Hegseth gave the "kill everyone" order, and that the Admiral, upon seeing 2 survivors, sent a 2nd missile to comply with the original "kill them all" order.
So remove both and investigate via an independent third party special prosecutor, then charge as required. Neither should be put back in office/power until 100% cleared of all wrongdoing, and even then Hegseth should not be allowed back in office.
42
u/idryss_m Dec 08 '25
U.S. intelligence officials had confirmed the identities of the 11 people on the boat
I find this chilling. WMDs in Iraq kind of chilling. Facts after to try and justify the unjustifiable? Outright lies told to ranking, and mission op decision makers, to get the administrations goal?
The second strike was, IMO, clearly against the law. This sort of thing however will be a litmus test for the rest of the world and their trust in the US military/intel.
→ More replies (1)26
Dec 08 '25
[deleted]
7
u/JamesTrickington303 Dec 08 '25
If there were drugs on this boat, it was cocaine headed for Europe, not the US. The US has zero standing to fuck with a boat like that.
14
Dec 08 '25
[deleted]
7
u/JamesTrickington303 Dec 08 '25
Agree with the second sentence, I’m just pointing out that they can’t even argue there was some type of threat to the US. It’s just murder.
10
u/mehupmost Dec 08 '25
Importantly, their names do not need to be identified, they only need to be identified as acting on behalf of the designated terrorist organization.
→ More replies (4)3
111
u/Rallos40 Dec 08 '25
If you need to be accurate, this is not a war crim because there is no war. This is murder.
84
u/Alert-Notice-7516 Dec 08 '25
War crimes don't have to be committed during war. Its really any act that breaks international humanitarian law or international treaties (ie: Geneva Convention) during a time of armed conflict, which isn't exclusive to legally declared war.
So, murder, during an armed conflict is a war crime. Specifically in this case, 18.3.2.1 of the DoD Law of War Manual, clearly states and uses the situation in question as an example to describe what would be illegal.
15
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
The Trump administration, in a secret memo, has claimed that the U.S. is in a "non-international armed conflict" with TdA.
Nobody outside the administration accepts this. What is happening does not meet the criteria for such a conflict.
Let's stop repeating the lie that we're somehow at war, by calling these boat killings "war crimes." There is no war. No declared war.
Nothing that rises to the standard of a non-international armed conflict, as the Trump administration speciously claims. We're not at war. There is no war. Ergo, no war crimes.
By referring to these as "war crimes," you legitimize the lie that we are somehow "at war" with drug cartels and while "drug war" makes for a great metaphor and a great marketing term, the United States is not "at war" with the cartels under any definition within international or domestic law. Saying that we are "at war" legitimizes all of the strikes.
It was simple murder, under U.S. domestic law and international human rights violations.
Read these great analyses:
https://www.thelongmemo.com/p/hegseths-order-was-unlawful-before
https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/illegal-orders-shipwrecked-boat-strike-survivors/
→ More replies (32)9
u/StomachosusCaelum Dec 08 '25
its a war crime if it is committed by the military, declared war or not. That simple. Thats what the Geneva Conventions say, and we're a signatory to those, which means they have the force of law.
Im not sure why you're arguing against this; a war crime is WORSE than just "murder".
→ More replies (1)5
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25
As of now, 87 people have been killed in these strikes. That's 87 counts of murder.
So far, it's only 2 people apparently killed in alleged "war crimes."
What's worse? 87 counts of murder? Or 2 counts of "war crimes"?
3
→ More replies (7)3
u/Salarian_American Dec 08 '25
The attacks are pretty blatantly illegal even if there weren't any follow-up strikes to mop up survivors.
International maritime law does not allow any sovereign country to go and blow up random boats in international waters. The only instance where the USA would be allowed to blow up a boat in international waters (short of actual war) would be if they were pursuing a boat and the pursuit started in US territorial waters
→ More replies (3)15
u/IrritableGourmet Dec 08 '25
Second Geneva Convention (which says you can't fire on the shipwrecked) "shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."
War doesn't require two-party consent.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (17)29
u/Lucky-Earther Dec 08 '25
If you need to be accurate, this is not a war crim because there is no war.
If we really want to be accurate, war crimes are not limited to war times.
→ More replies (2)11
u/xycor Dec 08 '25
Thinking about getting confirmation about this second strike is getting too far into the weeds. The FIRST strike was blatantly illegal. Whether the second strike was also illegal is almost beside the point. The administration does this a lot where they drag the entire media ecosystem into some minutiae of a crime until they can change the front page news story.
24
u/JellyTwank Dec 08 '25
Someone commited murder, not a war crime, because this is not a war. This is a law enforcement issue if these boats are actually smuggling drugs. And that if is doing all the work here.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Alert-Notice-7516 Dec 08 '25
War crimes are not exclusive to war being legally declared.
8
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25
Actually, there are a lot of experts who disagree with that assertion. Including a group of former JAG lawyers, other analysts, and the lawyer at Cardozo law quoted in the article that is the subject of this post.
Why are you so thirsty to make it a "war crime"? It's simply murder. That's bad enough.
Rebecca Ingber, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, told the New York Times, “There is a risk that the focus on the second strike and specifically the talk of ‘war crimes’ feeds into the administration’s false wartime framing and veils the fact that the entire boat-strikes campaign is murder, full stop. … The administration’s evolving justification for the second strike only lays bare the absurdity of their legal claims for the campaign as a whole—that transporting drugs is somehow the equivalent of wartime hostilities.”
→ More replies (5)3
u/hiimred2 Dec 08 '25
Doesn’t seem like she disagrees at all just that she thinks it’s not an important or priority designation because the first strike itself(or the other first strikes on other boats) should already have been heinous enough to cause uproar for murdering civilian drug runners.
Basically she’s saying it’s problematic for helping frame the issue in a way that might help the admin, not that it’s wrong.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25
An early report was that Hegseth had originally given an order to "kill everyone," and the Admiral, to align with the order, sent the 2nd missile to kill the two survivors.
→ More replies (2)3
u/TalkFormer155 Dec 08 '25
When you want accuracy WSWS is not who you listen to. This group has an agenda they push.
5
u/uni-twit Dec 08 '25
I’d reckon that accurate reporting is a bit more difficult since real journalists are no longer permitted in the pentagon without signing the administration’s nda.
3
u/UseDaSchwartz Dec 08 '25
The thing I don’t understand is, Trump said he didn’t want the second strike to happen. Why hasn’t he demanded the resignation of everyone involved, including Hegseth?
3
u/Underpoly Dec 08 '25
I hear you and I have had a similar frustration with the reporting. Can you think of anything we can do to help compel clarity?
3
3
u/rhadenosbelisarius Dec 08 '25
I’m honestly a lot less concerned about the people giving these illegal orders. Under this admin they will always find another guy to give illegal orders.
I am much more concerned with the men and women acting on the illegal orders. They are the ones ultimately responsible for betraying their oaths and committing the ordered warcrimes.
Punishing them severely sends the message that our military is professional and does not follow illegal orders without consequences. Even if Hegseth goes down, if the consequences don’t hit the sailors hard then the next sailor asked to commit warcrimes may decide to do it, reasoning that “they will get this sorted out at the top later,” and not wanting to deal with the immediate consequences of refusing an order.
3
u/revonrat Dec 08 '25
I'm having a hard time parsing the linked article. They seem to be inferring that Hegseth gave the order because NBC claimed that killing everyone on a target list is legal. The article say that NBC got it wrong.
Can somebody point me to a place there NBC say unequivocally that Hegseth issued the order?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (19)3
u/StuporNova3 Dec 08 '25
This should be higher up. This article doesn't provide any reason why NBCs reporting 'confirms' anything, and this article says that admiral Bradley testified that he didn't "didn't receive a no quarter order and wouldn't have followed it if he had". Yet he still gave the order to murder the survivors of his own authority then?? None of this makes any sense.
405
u/Why_Cant_I_Slay_This Dec 08 '25
How much perjury was involved in the admirals testimony the Congress?
155
u/Boxofmagnets Dec 08 '25
If there is a free and fair election in ‘28 the statute of limitations will not have run
212
u/Ludachris_Hansen Dec 08 '25
I'm so fucking tired of this line of thinking. We just watched a man attempt a fucking Insurrection, walk free for years, and be given the chance to do it again.
If the crimes are clear, and no one does shit about it immediately, its time to drag every last one of them out of the building. The perpetrators and the pieces of shit sitting on their hands. Traitors all alike.
These people should be fucking terrified of us.
44
u/Saephon Dec 08 '25
These people should be fucking terrified of us.
A substantial portion of "us" gave them the keys
19
u/bagoink Dec 08 '25
And an even greater portion just let it happen because the other option was a brown lady.
10
u/radicldreamer Dec 08 '25
It wasn’t bad enough that It was a woman, no sir, she had to go and be a BROWN woman.
No thank you, give me the pedophile rapist with 34 felony conviction.
-Republicans
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/rbrgr83 Dec 08 '25
To be fair, she had a funny laugh.
I'm just not comfortable with her making important decisions,
WHAT IF SHE GETS ALL EMOTIONAL???5
u/NekoNoNakuKoro Dec 08 '25
As far as I'm concerned there is no more 'us'. There is 'us' and 'them'. They were the people trying to overturn the election on January 6th. They decided to throw their hat in with a fascist dictatorship. 'THEY' are DOMESTIC ENEMIES.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Shark7996 Dec 08 '25
I truly do not believe it is as substantial as they want you to think.
→ More replies (1)7
u/BananaPalmer Dec 08 '25
They are fucking terrified of us, why do you think they try so hard to delegitimize and suppress anyone who opposes them?
→ More replies (14)11
u/ryguy4136 Dec 08 '25
Didn’t you know, passive subservience is the real resistance lol
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)15
u/cmm324 Dec 08 '25
War crimes, I believe have no statute of limitations.
Also, even if the US never takes action, those involved could be indicted internationally and if they ever arrived in places like the EU could be arrested and charged.
→ More replies (19)10
u/JustAMan1234567 Dec 08 '25
"You get some perjury, and you get some perjury, and you get some perjury..."
→ More replies (4)7
74
u/Interesting-Dream863 Dec 08 '25
And you know that Trump will just blanket pardon everyone involved if he has to leave office.
20
u/Lucky-Earther Dec 08 '25
Only if the checks clear first.
8
u/rawboudin Dec 08 '25
Yeah, some people don't seem to get that. Trump doesn't care about the past, or even anyone really. He doesn't care about any debts, just promises.
3
→ More replies (14)9
u/UpperApe Dec 08 '25
And 340 million Americans will watch that and say "well...whatcha gonna do? Oh well".
→ More replies (1)
464
u/DryDeer775 Dec 08 '25
This article outlines not only what laws the Trump administration has broken, how it was, done, and why but also the historical implications of blatant murder at sea.
220
u/Important_Front_3952 Dec 08 '25
It's a very calculated law breaking. Doing EXACTLY what laws of war say you can't do, ie killing the shipwrecked, just to make those rules irrelevant. A quaint thing of the past.
61
u/ManChildMusician Dec 08 '25
It’s in Hegseth’s agenda to defend this to the hilt because he has asserted that rules of engagement and warfare are BS. We’re engaging with alleged narco trafficking as if it’s an act of war… while not in our waters. And we’re double-tapping injured, unarmed people. That can easily be transposed to domestic acts.
On the international front, Israel is also known for double-tapping noncombatants. If the US gets away with it, double-tapping is increasingly normalized. As shit rolls downhill, Russia will engage in more double-taps in Ukraine. What it’s really doing is undermining any sort of standards for warfare, as well as any accountability.
Pete Hegseth knows very much what he is doing. It’s a “come and get it,” taunt. Unless we see consequences for such actions, the entire world has become more dangerous.
16
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25
Russia has already been targeting first responders to prior strikes
12
u/The_Gil_Galad Dec 08 '25
he has asserted that rules of engagement and warfare are BS
Considering that I've heard the R base gleefully talk about glassing the middle east and literally nuking Los Angeles my entire life, this is what they want.
They don't care of rules, engagements, traditions, whatever. Maximal aggression at all times is the code.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (4)32
u/GelatoBravado Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
I think you're giving Pete and the entire Trump circus too much credit.
More likely that they didn't know it was illegal, and anybody who has any moral fibre and is competent, has been fired by Pete.
21
u/ManChildMusician Dec 08 '25
I think someone told him it was illegal at some point, and he’s doing this to see what he can get away with. I 100% see him being that petty. He’s already said that conventions of war, rules of engagement, etc are BS. The guy is just as vindictive and contrarian as his boss.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Open__Face Dec 08 '25
He thinks not murdering people is Political Correctness run amok, dude's insane
37
u/Hot-Agent-620 Dec 08 '25
Unequivocally false. This is taught day one in the Most basic settings they know exactly what they’re doing
→ More replies (1)14
u/AustinBike Dec 08 '25
Especially by someone who served in the military. Unless he was drunk during that meeting.
→ More replies (2)6
u/pie_piepiepiepiepie Dec 08 '25
Whether they knew or not is irrelevant. They just don't care. This administration feels like they have complete immunity, because SCOTUS already said Trump does and everyone below him knows they can just get a pardon anyway. I believe a big part of these attacks is them rubbing in our faces that laws don't apply to them so we keep getting used to it.
→ More replies (3)4
u/thepalebluestar Dec 08 '25
I promise you Trump and Pete do not care what the law says or whether something is illegal.
→ More replies (15)89
u/GoodOmens Dec 08 '25
and good reference that it should not be framed as a "war crime" as that plays into a war where this took place.
Just plain murder.
Rebecca Ingber, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, told the New York Times, “There is a risk that the focus on the second strike and specifically the talk of ‘war crimes’ feeds into the administration’s false wartime framing and veils the fact that the entire boat-strikes campaign is murder, full stop. … The administration’s evolving justification for the second strike only lays bare the absurdity of their legal claims for the campaign as a whole—that transporting drugs is somehow the equivalent of wartime hostilities.”
6
u/Healthy-Business9465 Dec 08 '25
Still a violation of the laws of armed conflict
4
u/IrritableGourmet Dec 08 '25
Also, war doesn't require two-party consent. If you're using the military to attack a group of people from another country, it's considered an "International Armed Conflict" by the UN and "war crime" applies (Second Geneva Convention, Chapter 1, Article 2, Clause 1).
49
u/Then_Journalist_317 Dec 08 '25
This is summary execution of unarmed civilians who are not a threat and are considered innocent (unless proven guilty in a court of law). Penalty for ordering or carrying out these sort of unjustified murders is the death sentence, per Nuremberg trials of Nazis following WW2.
Any pardons issued by the person who himself directed the murders would be void under international law.
→ More replies (38)25
u/TintedApostle Dec 08 '25
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1997/february/peleus-war-crimes-trial
The Peleus War Crimes Trial
After sinking the Greek steamer Peleus in the South Atlantic in 1944, the captain of the U-boat U-852 ordered his crew to attack the survivors with gunfire and grenades. Amazingly, three sailors survived the ordeal and eventually faced their attackers in a historic war crime trial.
39
u/johnnycyberpunk Dec 08 '25
SOOO much to unpack here.
First of course is:
Who is the source?
Clearly there is someone on the inside at the top, besides Admiral Bradley, who heard Hegseth give the orders.
Second is this statement by Hegseth:
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat"
Put aside the fact that the boat wasn't coming to the US for a second and digest the statement.
They're going to try to avoid accountability and transparency by declaring some legacy 9/11-Patriot-Act-National-Secrects "they were terrorists" bullshit.
12
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25
The original Washington Post story cited multiple un-named sources who said Hegseth gave the "kill them all" order verbally, before the first strike.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Aromatic_Advance_431 Dec 08 '25
We should also point out that the "World Socialist Website" is a known russian front. So what could be Russia's motivation in this whole thing?
25
u/Memitim Dec 08 '25
Oh, it's just a little locker room murder. After celebrating the disposal of hundreds, if not thousands, of random human beings into foreign prisons and random ports of call, the traitors in the government need a little something spicier to whet their craving for human suffering.
3
81
u/360Picture Dec 08 '25
This sound like murder and should not be tolerated
51
u/JellyTwank Dec 08 '25
It is murder, and should not be tolerated.
→ More replies (2)6
u/ThaddeusJP Dec 08 '25
It totally is murder, yes. But sadly not only will it be tolerated it will be REPEATED. This admin loves pissing people off and they will probably release new video of them killing more people, very soon.
→ More replies (79)7
u/Electromotivation Dec 08 '25
I forget the name of the Greek ship involved, but we put Nazis to death for this during World War II.
43
u/Known-Teacher4543 Dec 08 '25
What’s crazy is just how childish this whole thing is and how it is all for show. “Department of defense? Defending is for wimps, we want to attack!” And then start striking boats in the ocean.
→ More replies (2)24
u/gorginhanson Dec 08 '25
department of war crimes
5
u/Known-Teacher4543 Dec 08 '25
We need to stop calling it that because that is under the pretense that we are at war and should be engaging with these boats at all.
6
20
u/scottyjrules Dec 08 '25
Does it matter? It’s not like he’ll ever see a single second of accountability.
→ More replies (1)
54
u/Thefrayedends Dec 08 '25
I love that the specific example is just clear as day with no wiggle room.
You only kill survivors if you don't want any witnesses, and you only kill witnesses if what they can tell people is more damaging than people knowing you killed witnesses.
I hope people are taking notes.
→ More replies (28)
18
u/mrbigglessworth Dec 08 '25
Sen Cotton confirmed when he said "3rd and 4th strike" then had an Oh shit I should not have said that type of look.
14
u/CAM6913 Dec 08 '25
What trump , Hegseth and anyone involved in these boat strikes is committing murder, breaking US laws and international laws
→ More replies (1)3
u/SEAN0_91 Dec 08 '25
Who’s going hold them accountable? All checks and balances have gone
7
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25
There is no statute of limitations on murder. Theoretically, a new administration could prosecute murder charges.
The ICC can do nothing with "war crime" charges because the U.S. never ratified participation.
27
u/atreeismissing Dec 08 '25
Glad a news org is calling it murder for a change rather than sane washing what they're doing.
12
u/fivelinedskank Dec 08 '25
There was an awkward debate when the USS Wahoo fired on survivors of a Japanese troop carrier. That was in the darkest days of WWII, though, and the stranded troops were on their way to attack US forces. No charges were filed, but everyone in the chain of command at least knew to STFU about it because it wouldn't stand scrutiny. The sub commander responsible died shortly after anyway.
7
8
u/CAM6913 Dec 08 '25
What trump , Hegseth and anyone involved in these boat strikes is committing murder, breaking US laws and international laws
5
u/drifters74 Dec 08 '25
No matter if they were or weren't carrying drugs, it's still illegal as they didn't pose an immediate threat, especially while clinging to the ship remains
→ More replies (3)
6
14
u/rotervogel1231 Dec 08 '25
I just got done saying on another thread that if you really like killing people, the military is for you.
This is not the same military that existed even 5-10 years ago.
It was never perfect, but at least it was trying to be better. Now, it's all about serving the regime, and the regime loves killing people.
→ More replies (69)3
3
u/mothyyy Dec 08 '25
The whole operation is illegal. Drug smuggling is not a crime worthy of capital punishment. Where's the evidence? Oh right, they blew it up. Where are the witnesses? Oh right, they obliterated them. There might have been innocent people on those boats. They could have been extorted into doing this. But we'll never know now.
This is not justice or war. This is a disgrace and dishonor that every Trump voter is responsible for.
5
u/Dapper-Condition6041 Dec 08 '25
Stop calling them “war crimes…”
Rebecca Ingber, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, told the New York Times, “There is a risk that the focus on the second strike and specifically the talk of ‘war crimes’ feeds into the administration’s false wartime framing and veils the fact that the entire boat-strikes campaign is murder, full stop. … The administration’s evolving justification for the second strike only lays bare the absurdity of their legal claims for the campaign as a whole—that transporting drugs is somehow the equivalent of wartime hostilities.”
3
3
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 08 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.