WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 3, 2025
Here we go again: Did Pete Hegseth commit a war crime? We suppose it's certainly possible that he actually did.
That said, the knives are out for the highly erratic, widely scorned Secretary of Defense. In some quarters, that has produced a familiar type of chase, with creative paraphrase being widely applied to the several things Hegseth has now said about the events of September 2.
Full disclosure:
The analytical skills of mainstream journalists are frequently rather poor. When they settle on a group target, the embellishments and the slippery paraphrase are rarely far behind.
In the case of Hegseth, the current uproar about the second strike on the disabled boat (and on its two survivors) began with a rather fuzzy report in the Washington Post. Headline included, this is the way the current chase after this new target started:
Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all
The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.
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.
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 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.
[...]
The commander overseeing the operation from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, told people on the secure conference call that the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo, according to two people. He ordered the second strike to fulfill Hegseth’s directive that everyone must be killed.
The chronology there is less than precise. We know of nothing Hegseth has said which is inconsistent with that first fuzzy account.
According to that account, Hegseth gave a spoken order at some unspecified time. "The order was to kill everybody," one person is said to have said.
(Would some such order be a war crime in itself? We have no idea.)
It sounds like the first strike on the boat came soon after that. (It sounds that way, but the Post's report doesn't explicitly say so.) According to Hegseth's latest statement, he then left the scene.
He says he did so before "the smoke cleared." When the smoke cleared (how long did that take?), that would have made it possible for Admiral Bradley and / or others to see there were two survivors.
Is that possible? Of course it is! But is that what actually happened?
We have no idea.
That said, the Post account explicitly says that it was Admiral Bradley who decided to order the second strike. If Hegseth had still been present on the scene, wouldn't he have been the one to make that second decision?
(Maybe yes, maybe no. We don't know how these things work.)
The mob is now attempting to hang Hegseth high based on a comment he made about "the fog of war." All he seemed to saying was this:
The smoke from the initial strike obscured everyone's vision for a while. By the time the smoke had cleared, he had left the scene.
Has Hegseth described events as they actually happened? We have no way of knowing.
We do know that some of the semi-usual suspects are on the hunt again. (Joe Scarborough was horrendous on Morning Joe this morning.)
Instead of waiting for audio / video recordings to establish what was said and done, the chase is on for the highly erratic man who prefers to call himself the Secretary of War. As this chase has moved through the streets, the attempts at paraphrase have been highly creative.
That said:
We know of nothing Hegseth has said which contradicts the initial Washington Post report. We know of nothing he has said which contradicts his own handful of statements.
We're simply going to have to wait if we want to establish what actually happened. In the meantime, a few of the jackals are back in the streets, advancing the versions of this story which they themselves prefer.
We've been on this beat for 27 years. Al Gore said he invented the Internet!
We've seen them do this before!
I expect that Your Gracious Host will have more to say on this matter in the days ahead. As it stands, this report offers little to support its primary assertions: that "jackals" are "paraphrasing" Hegseth to promote a preferred story.
ReplyDeleteSo far, the identities of said jackals and examples of their paraphrasing remain unsaid.
This might be an example. https://youtu.be/lcTZPDW13do?si=b6BTEEhYtJaYoxkA
DeleteHegseth gave an order to kill everybody. Why isn't he charged with murder is my question.
ReplyDeleteAce of Spades covered this yesterday.
Deletehttps://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=417536
CC - I read your link, but it doesn't even begin to answer Ilya's question: Why isn't Hegseth charged with murder for ordering everyone to be killed?
DeleteI mean, we're not at war and the victims were not convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death. What is the justification for their executions?
DeleteAKA DG, that argument would be prefaced upon the opinion that all the strikes were illegal. The Democrats have been arguing that and it hasn’t had a lot movement as in locking them up. The new outrage is that Hegseth didn’t just blast a motorboat full of people, he ordered his people to kill all the survivors in the water. The latter scenario is far less questionable as to being improper.
DeleteCC - That's a dodge, not an answer.
DeleteI glanced at the post, to which you have provided a link, Cecilia. Other than being incoherent, I don't see where it answers the question: why is an order "to kill everyone" not considered a crime.
DeleteIt's not Democrats who have been arguing that this is illegal. Every legal expert agrees on that account. Myself, I am ambivalent about a tack where you say: let's gloss over the underlying illegality of these strikes; let's just zoom in on the most egregious, flagrant violation of laws and norms.
IIya, I didn’t link it in order to convince you of anything. I linked it because it waged/reported the Hegseth explanation that Bob blogged on a minute an ago.
DeleteDG, it’s not a dodge,. I haven’t come to a conclusion. If I had I would have linked the article yesterday or made a pitch for it based upon the “fog of war”. I linked it today because Bob brought up the brouhaha over the order.No seemed to know anything about it here. Go sit on your quiver or something.
DeleteIlya, why is that your question? Who would charge him? Is it not that our leaders have been committing war crimes pretty much constantly for our whole lives? We kind of become blind to it because we live in the middle of it but don't forget we are citizens of a violent and immoral military empire.
DeleteBut I guess I can see now you're asking because it's a partisan issue. You're feeding that need. It's kind of a wish fantasy kind of thing. That's cool.
I’ve known a few Somalis. They seemed nice.
ReplyDeleteThey have that weird head shape.
DeleteTheir heads seemed OK.
DeleteBroad foreheads. Attractive on Somoli women, not so much with Somoli men.
Delete4:10 and 5:24 you're an idiot.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:46pm, you can disguise it with the right hairstyle.
DeleteStill an idiot. You're more partial to the Stephen Miller look, especially the Popeil spray-on-hair look.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:51pm, no, I’m strictly a Tom Homan cut kinda guy.
DeleteOh, Cecelia! I’ve been saying that you’re a woman, against persistent claims by other anonymice that you’re a man. And now you admit you’re a guy. Thanks, bro.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:57pm, no problem. It’s a blogboard. I’ve said it a hundred times. Call me Cecil if it makes you feel better.
DeleteIt would make me feel better to call you Cecilia, but I respect your preference.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:25am, I don’t have a preference. Just call me to dinner.
DeleteNo thanks. I'm saving my appetite to have the rich for dinner.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:48am, I thought you hit them up on Thanksgiving.
DeleteThe mob is now attempting to hang Hegseth high based on a comment he made about "the fog of war." All he seemed to saying was this:
ReplyDeleteThe smoke from the initial strike obscured everyone's vision for a while.
That's not what the "fog of war means". It is possible that Hegseth, being a moron that he is, doesn't know that. However, if we take Hegseth at his word, it's a confession. There's no fog when two helpless people are clinging to the wreckage.
More importantly, as I mentioned above, and as Bob points out himself: the order to kill everybody seems to be very adjacent to a war crime.
IIya, it’s also possible that Hegseth was using well-known trope - the fog of war” as a means of ironically emphasizing that war is fraught PERIOD.
DeleteWhy are you skipping over the original crime? Who cares about the second tap, the first was a crime. Idiots used to scream about a tyrannical deep state killing people without due process. Now that it is happening they are all in on it, because it is happening to those people. Cultists suck.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:42pm, why are you chiding me for addressing a point of contention that was raised by IIya?
DeleteExcept that there's no war. Apparently, you can be in "the fog of war" and commit war crimes without an actual war.
DeleteIronically? You need to elucidate that a little more. I don't see what the irony is here.
DeleteIIya, that’s your opinion. We know that Hegseth has said that the USA is at war with these drug runners. Hegseth used the figurative “fog” trope ironically as real smoke and also as real confusion that lead to the mistaken response to his order.
DeleteIrony is in the eye of the beholder.
DeleteIt makes not a bit of difference what Hegseth says. The only entity whose "opinion" counts is the US Congress, and it has not declared war with Venezuela or Columbia, the two countries whose citizens we're wantonly killing. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:12pm, so? Iiya mentioned the context of the original quote and I replied in turn.
DeleteIIya, where did I challenge your argument?
Delete
ReplyDelete"Did Pete Hegseth commit a war crime?"
Did Barak Obama commit a war crime, killing thousands of perfectly innocent people, including hundreds of children, including American citizens?
If you didn't question Obama's kill-lists and drone-killings then, you have no business questioning Hegseth now.
Well, without turning yourself into a super-partisan asshole hypocrite, that is. And once you are a super-partisan asshole hypocrite, no one cares who you're questioning.
Why'd you skip the original sin of Dubya?
DeleteOriginal sin = globalism
DeleteObama committed crimes. Therefore Trump can commit crimes.
DeleteGood point by @anon@4:43.
DeleteSecondly, as opposed as I was, to the strikes conducted by the Obama administration, they were contextualized very differently. There was congressional approval and vetting by the legal establishment. On the one hand, it is a distinction without any difference to the people who were killed incidental to the strikes. On the other hand, it does not reek of arbitrary, capricious, king-like authority displayed by Trump.
Ilya, systematic, well-organized killing that is vetted and contextualized by lawyers is more moral than capricious killing?
DeleteCan you be sure that's not just the partisanship talking?
There's that thing of intention and apathy. Is it less moral for a military empire like ours to kill citizens of other countries with the intention of killing them than it is for the same country to kill the same citizens and just not care if they live or die? Ants on the sidewalk. Collateral damage. Their deaths that don't matter.
DeleteIt's probably a both sides issue. Neither of the party's leaders give a shit about the dead. The dead are simply a byproduct of the conquest. They don't want to kill them. They don't intend to kill them. They are just numbers on a spreadsheet. Their lives and deaths are inconsequential, not important and don't matter.
DeletePart of our success as as one of history's most successful murdering empires is the ability of our leadership to be apathetic about the deaths our war machine perpetually turns out.
"Did Barak Obama commit a war crime, killing thousands of perfectly innocent people, including hundreds of children"
DeleteHow do we know how many of them were 'perfectly innocent'?
That’s cool. Kill people you weren’t aiming at, and your defense is “How do you know they were innocent?”
DeleteAnon@7:06 -- More moral? Perhaps -- even probably -- not. However, the differences are significant. Those strikes were approved. The people targeted were known and killed in the context of a known conflict. Today, Trump, unilaterally, made a royal decree to blow up some boats. In the most charitable light, these boats are operated by suspected criminals. That's in the most charitable light. Maybe the boats were carrying marijuana! It simply does not fit any legal framework to kill alleged drug dealers in international waters. There's literally nothing that would permit such actions.
DeleteI was disgusted when Obama gave an order to kill a US citizen in Yemen or wherever it was. Yet, it's nowhere near analogous to what Donny Demento is doing.
People throw the term "war crime" around as if they knew what it means. Most of us don't know.
ReplyDelete-- What law book defines "war crimes"?
-- Does that law book (if it exists) apply to US action against Tren de Aragua drug smugglers in the open sea?
-- If there is such an applicable law book, precisely what does it say?
BTW An example of the ignorant use of the term is Israeli attacks on hospitals that Hamas is using for military purposes. Many people wrongly think this is an Israeli war crime. It isn't. But, the use of civilian human shields IS a Hamas war crime.
Tren de Aragua is made up. No, we didn't execute members of the Italian mafia in the open see. In general, regardless of whether you call them a gang, they are still civilians.
DeleteMaybe you don't know the legality of these strikes, but every legal expert/historian that I have listened to calls these strikes "lawless" at best.
I know that there are critics of the legality of Trump's military actions, Ilya. Still, I would like to see for myself the facts and all the laws and make up my own mind.
DeletePast examples don't prove anything, but I believe we did execute pirates and suspected pirates on the open seas at various points in time. Was that legal? Are there laws that specifically differentiate suspected pirates from suspected cartel members?
One thing we can all agree on is that greasy Hegseth is a fucking punk who cannot stand up like a man and accept responsibility for his crimes. And King Orange Chickenshit is a fucking coward.
Delete-- What law book defines "war crimes"?
DeleteMostly, the Geneva Conventions, of which the United States is a signatory country.
Signatories, perhaps. Adherents, perhaps not.
DeleteThere's also a Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is "the body of federal law that governs the conduct of U.S. service members."
DeleteThe UCMJ prohibits shooting combatants who are wounded or unable to defend themselves.
But it's not clear if the UCMJ applies to the Venezuelan boat murders since the guys being murdered clearly aren't combatants. They're probably some combination of drug runners and fishermen.
8:29. Your point being that if they were drug runners they were fair game? Nonsense if that's the thought process.
Delete5:29. We had slaves at one point in time and it was legal. You couldn't make third string on a middle school debate team. Andrew Napolitano , the right wing legal expert/ frequent Fox contributor, has weighed in on this, calling it a war crime for which all participating members should be tried. That is exactly what it is and you embarrass yourself by purposely not recognizing it as such. Pathetic.
DeleteQuaker - I believe the Geneva Convention applies mostly to the treatment of uniformed soldiers in actual wars. I don't know if it applies to criminals in international waters.
Delete8:52,
Deleteif I thought they were 'fair game' would I have said they were being murdered?
You don't blow up suspected drug traffickers you shitheel. Jesus the stupid
Delete9:10 You stupid fuck. Where do you think it is written that our armed services have the right to target and kill unidentified civilians? This isn't the goddamn IDF.
Delete".. criminals in international waters..." Says who? Oh yeah Pete Fucking Hegseth. " I would like to see for myself the facts..." No you wouldn't. Being a lazy MAGAt, you are happy to take Hegseth's word for who they were.
DeleteHector. Sorry misread your statement.
DeleteDavid: Fair enough. If we're not at war then this is just murder, not a war crime.
DeleteDavid: a criminal is a person who has been convicted of a crime. Let's ponder that for a bit, since you don't think that Geneva Convention doesn't apply.
DeleteYes, the crew on the boat are (or were) accused drug smugglers and Hegseth, Bradley and Trump are accused murderers.
DeleteBradley should have known better. In retrospect, the purging of the DEI in the military, only to result in the juvenile self - preening alcoholic that currently runs the show, was nothing more than a manifestation of racism and misogyny.
DeleteIt's Schrodinger's War, simultaneously a war and not a war. When Trump wants "emergency authority," we're at war; when the navy blows up civilian boats at sea, there's no war crime because it's not a war.
Delete"We don't know how these things work."
ReplyDeleteObviously
Two facts seem certain:
ReplyDelete1. After seeing that two survivors were hanging onto the wreckage of their boat for dear life, Admiral Frank Bradley ordered a strike blowing them to pieces.
2. Hegseth ratified Bradley's decision to kill the survivors ("I stand by [Bradley] and the combat decisions he has made").
And what do you think of calling the decision to blow up two drowning, burning men a "combat" decision? Was this really an act of heroic bravery?
DeleteThey have killed, what, 38 people so far in these air attacks? It's been estimated that the boat would have to refuel 8 times to get to the US, and as someone has noted, running drugs with more than 2 people on board is not normal. The entire scenario is bogus starting with the labeling of these people terrorists. This is part of the run-up to engaging Venezuela in armed conflict. Remember when this corrupt administration justified tariffs on Canada because of the basically nonexistent fentanyl trade cross that border? The rubes are supposed to get all jacked up about big daddy protecting us when he has released the worst drug traffickers in our history from our prisons.
DeleteNow Bradley is reportedly going to say that it was indeed a “combat” decision because the two drowning, burning men were intending to continue using their blown-up boat to smuggle in whatever drugs weren’t blown up or sunk in the initial attack.
DeleteDoes that explanation work for you, DiC?
I think Hegseth is likely to be gone, not because the republicans in congress give a shit about the criminality of all this. If Trump had an approval rating of 60% they would find a way to accept his incompetence and criminal behavior. But they are beginning to realize that being zombie Trump minions is a liability, what with his approval rating of 36% and sinking. So jettisoning Hegseth when they didn't like him in the first place gives them the appearance of being independent from Trump on some level.
DeleteSheesh:
Deletehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-hegseth-venezuela-boat-strikes-war-crimes-are-they-legal/
Venezuela now has the world's largest oil reserves. Funny that.
ReplyDeletePro-tip:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to keep Trump from threatening to sue you, accuse him of raping children.
The Supreme Court members bankrolled by Russian oligarchs (Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh), ruled that it's not a crime if a Republican President does it.
DeleteTurns out, the gun owner who will fight government tyranny with their 2nd Amendment rights, and the Republican voter who isn't a bigot are the same person.
ReplyDeleteThe FBI has arrested a suspect in the January 6 pipe bomb case.
ReplyDeleteDo you trust Bongino, Patel, Bondi, and Trump?
Delete