By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu has accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of potentially committing a war crime, citing reports that a second strike was ordered to kill survivors of an initial attack on a drug vessel. Lieu stated that a classified DOJ memo and military law do not authorize a second strike against defenseless survivors. The allegations stem from a Washington Post report claiming Hegseth ordered all individuals on the vessel to be killed, leading to a second strike after the first killed nine and destroyed the vessel. While the Pentagon spokesman and Hegseth have denied the report, the accusations raise serious concerns about the legality of the military operation.
Read the original article here
So, let’s unpack this situation regarding the Democratic Rep’s claim that Pete Hegseth might have committed war crimes. This is serious stuff, and the “may have” phrasing in the initial reporting is, well, it’s a bit frustrating. It leaves room for doubt, even though the accusations are incredibly serious. People are right to be annoyed by that ambiguity, especially when the actions described seem pretty clear-cut.
Now, let’s be honest, the idea of “finishing off” survivors of a vessel strike… that doesn’t exactly scream “lawful conduct.” In fact, it sounds like murder. Not just regular murder, but potentially something far worse, especially considering the context. It’s a violation of the Geneva Convention, a clear breach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and a direct challenge to the fundamental principles of armed conflict.
The UCMJ is very clear on this. Military personnel are bound by lawful orders, and an order to execute unarmed non-combatants is, by definition, unlawful. Article 118, which addresses murder, is particularly relevant here. The unlawful killing of a human being, with no justification, is a serious offense, carrying severe penalties. We’re talking about the potential for life sentences or even the death penalty. Manslaughter could also be in play. The question isn’t whether it’s a crime; the question is the level of crime.
Of course, some might say, “We’re not at war,” but that doesn’t mean these actions are suddenly okay. Destroying a vessel in international waters, and then potentially murdering survivors, isn’t a legitimate way to deal with the situation.
It’s disturbing to consider the implications, especially if these allegations are true. It means that there may have been a complete disregard for the rules of engagement and the most basic standards of human rights. There’s a lot of concern that this administration won’t hold anyone accountable. The perception that powerful figures can act with impunity is corrosive to the very fabric of justice and the military’s credibility.
It’s also worth noting that the “American Service-Members’ Protection Act” could further complicate things. If the U.S. doesn’t hold its own accountable, then what? The potential for international repercussions is certainly there, and the international community may step in to investigate and prosecute.
The whole situation also highlights a deeper problem: the political climate of the country. The sentiment is that those in power believe they can bypass the law and avoid any repercussions. It’s a dangerous precedent.
The Democrats need to be proactive and make a strong case. This is not the time to be cautious or timid. They need to investigate this thoroughly and, if the evidence supports it, bring charges. Waiting and hoping for the situation to fade won’t work. The longer these issues go unresolved, the more damage it causes to the integrity of law.
Given the potential consequences, the silence from the accused is deafening. Has Hegseth denied these accusations directly? Has he offered an explanation? The lack of straightforward answers adds to the suspicion and fuels speculation.
And let’s not forget the bigger picture. The context of these alleged actions matters a great deal. The article suggests this isn’t about stopping drug smuggling. It’s about furthering political goals and possibly even regime change. These actions are possibly nothing more than a way to escalate conflict. It’s a case of using violence to achieve political objectives.
In essence, the claim that Pete Hegseth may have committed war crimes is a very serious one, regardless of the qualifiers. If the allegations are true, it’s a clear violation of international law and a betrayal of the principles of military conduct. It’s time for a thorough investigation, and the truth needs to come out. There’s no place for extrajudicial killings or war crimes in a just society.