By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article reports on a series of military strikes launched during the Trump administration targeting alleged drug-running boats, resulting in over 80 deaths. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly issued a verbal order to leave no survivors, leading to a second strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack. Legal experts and members of Congress have raised concerns, labeling the actions as potential extrajudicial killings and war crimes. While the Department of Defense declined to comment, the administration maintains the strikes are legal, targeting “narco-terrorists” in an ongoing “armed conflict.”
Read the original article here
Pete Hegseth’s order to ‘kill everybody’ included alleged drug boat survivors: report immediately draws attention to the crux of the matter: an alleged command that seemingly disregarded international laws and ethical boundaries. The very phrasing, “kill everybody,” indicates a complete lack of regard for human life, especially considering the context: an encounter with a boat suspected of drug trafficking. It sets the stage for a discussion about potential war crimes and a deep dive into the actions of someone entrusted with significant power.
If this order was indeed given and carried out, it raises serious questions about the morality and legality of the actions. Even if the individuals on the boat were involved in illegal activities, international law provides guidelines on how such situations should be handled. Shooting at a civilian vessel with no legal justification, and then hitting the survivors is an egregious violation of these rules. The focus should be on apprehending the suspects and collecting evidence, not on wholesale slaughter.
The potential war crime implications of the order are impossible to ignore. Double-tapping, a term used to describe attacking a target and then attacking the survivors, is specifically mentioned as being illegal under the laws of war. This is a clear indication that if the reports are true, this is not just a matter of poor judgment; it is a direct violation of established norms and protocols that are designed to protect human lives. Such actions, if proven, should be dealt with by a war crime tribunal.
The ramifications extend far beyond the immediate incident. Such actions have the potential to erode the moral standing of a nation. As one comment puts it, it’s a sign of a nation becoming “savagely barbaric.” It is a concern that should resonate with anyone who believes in the principles of justice and accountability. It is a matter of ethics and maintaining the reputation of the country.
One of the troubling aspects of this report is the suggestion that such orders were issued by a high-ranking individual. The comments on the topic suggests that this reflects an attitude of impunity, where individuals believe they are above the law. This raises larger questions about the accountability of those in positions of power and the consequences they should face when orders like these are issued.
The potential political fallout is also worth considering. There is a strong sentiment that this could be a major scandal, and one comment suggests that the next administration should facilitate extraditions for potential prosecution.
This is a scenario where the law, and international law, comes into play. It is not just about the actions themselves; it is also about the orders that led to those actions. Every individual involved in the chain of command, from those who gave the order to those who carried it out, will be held accountable. “Just following orders” is not a defense for murder.
The comments also reflect the feeling of moral outrage. The notion that “murder is it” and that the act is an “indefensible war crime” indicates a sense of deep disappointment and betrayal.
The context of the incident also seems to be important. The report suggests that the incident involved alleged drug boat survivors. This underscores the potential violation of the Geneva Conventions, which provide guidelines on the treatment of enemy combatants, including those who are injured. Failing to adhere to these rules further complicates the situation.
It’s clear that this is not just a matter of legal technicalities. It is a matter of what kind of society we want to live in. In addition to the legal implications, the alleged actions violate the basic principles of humanity. The response should be proportionate to the threat, and the focus should be on preserving life.