By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is facing scrutiny for a double-tap strike in the Caribbean that resulted in the death of survivors from an initial boat attack. Multiple legal experts and lawmakers suggest that Hegseth’s order to “kill everybody” could lead to investigations for war crimes or murder, as the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual prohibits targeting those who are incapacitated. The attacks, which have resulted in at least 83 civilian deaths, are considered extrajudicial killings, as the targets are suspected drug traffickers. Following the September 2 strike, a government source claimed Hegseth was turning military personnel into “murderers” while the Former JAGs Working Group condemned the actions as war crimes.
Read the original article here
Entire Chain of Command Could Be Held Liable for Killing Boat Strike Survivors, Sources Say, and that’s a weighty statement. It brings up a lot of questions, doesn’t it? How does something like this even happen? And more importantly, who’s responsible?
The buck seems to stop at the top, doesn’t it? When you look at the chain of command, you have to consider everyone from the individual who pulled the trigger all the way up to those in charge. If this was a deliberate act, the potential culpability extends upwards. There’s a distinct feeling that this whole thing shouldn’t have happened in the first place, and that someone along the way should have intervened.
The very fact that these survivors were allegedly attacked, potentially twice, paints a grim picture. Those men clinging to life, holding onto something to stay afloat – they were not a threat. Yet, they were targeted. This kind of action raises serious questions about the ethics of war and the rules of engagement. What about the cost of the second strike? How many resources were wasted?
The concept of accountability is also deeply intertwined here. Will anyone be held responsible for their actions? There’s a prevailing sense that those in positions of power often escape consequences. There’s a cynicism that suggests that laws are essentially meaningless if there’s no one willing to enforce them, especially when it comes to holding the powerful accountable.
This isn’t just about a single incident; it’s about a pattern. There’s a feeling that this is just another instance of a recurring problem. How many other questionable actions have gone unpunished? There’s a certain weariness about these headlines. They sound the alarm, yet there’s an inherent doubt as to whether anything meaningful will actually happen.
It’s easy to feel the weight of history when considering these events. The specter of past atrocities hangs heavy, and the fear is that this will be another incident swept under the rug. There is this idea that if the whole truth was to be known, it would implicate those in power and highlight how they are above the law.
The phrase “I was just following orders” comes to mind, of course. Those words have echoed through history, yet they don’t excuse the actions taken. It’s a reminder that individuals within the chain of command had a duty to question, to refuse if necessary, and that failure to do so implies guilt.
There’s talk about the potential for court-martials and murder charges, even at the highest levels. This kind of talk is a rarity. There’s a palpable sense of skepticism, though. The odds that true accountability will be served are considered slim. The use of the word “could” seems to be doing the heavy lifting here.
The discussion also turns to potential pardons. It’s almost a given that those who may be in the firing line will be pardoned, thus sidestepping the process. It’s a frustrating situation when the system designed to hold people accountable is susceptible to political manipulation.
It boils down to a question of whether the system of checks and balances still works. Are there any limits to power? When will there be consequences for these kinds of actions? The lack of accountability creates an environment where such things are deemed acceptable.
There’s an understanding that those who have the courage to refuse unlawful orders could find themselves facing consequences. If such individuals were to have taken a stand, there’s a good chance that they would have faced punishment, while the strike would have still taken place.
The potential for this case to be a landmark moment in history is clear. It’s an illegal order to kill those survivors. Everyone who knew this order was illegal should be held accountable. The absence of accountability threatens the very foundations of the legal system, suggesting that anything ordered from the top is permissible.