It was never about the drugs

[Rideback]

Jay Kuo: Substack
'U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has tumbled into a political garbage compactor. And his career could get crushed as a result.
Reporting on Friday by the Washington Post, backed by two sources familiar with the operation, stated Hegseth ordered SEAL Team 6 to “kill them all” after the U.S. military destroyed an alleged drug smuggling vessel off the coast of Venezuela in early September. That order included two *survivors* who reportedly were still in the water, clinging to the wreckage of their craft.
There aren’t many things that people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, let alone the entire civilized world, agree on. But the immorality and illegality of firing upon defenseless people floating in the ocean after you’ve sunk their ship, giving them “no quarter” in their time of greatest distress, is one. And there is no one, outside of lawless or fascist regimes, who would defend it today.
This is where we now find ourselves. The prohibition on “no quarter” orders is such a bright line that even the increasingly lawless and fascist Trump regime won’t be able to stand behind it. And that has Hegseth’s opponents eager to press the crush button on his garbage leadership.
**Any way you slice this bread, Hegseth is toast
If the reporting is accurate—and as I’ll discuss below, there is strong reason to believe it is, and the specifics will soon become clear—this presents quite a conundrum for the ”War Secretary.”
If we are at war, as Hegseth claims, then his order was a war crime. A “Former JAG Working Group,” comprising officials that Hegseth conveniently pushed out of their military legal oversight roles just before the illegal strikes began, “unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both.”
Here’s why. If the U.S. military operation to destroy vessels suspected of narco-trafficking is in fact a “non-international armed conflict” as the White House claims, then Hegseth’s orders to “kill them all” can “reasonably be regarded as an order to give ‘no quarter,’ and to ‘double-tap’ a target in order to kill survivors”—something that is “clearly illegal under international law.”
“In short,” the Former JAG Working Group concludes, “they are war crimes.”
If we want a clear textual statement of this, we need look no further than the Defense Department’s own Law of War Manual, which explicitly cites “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked” as a “clearly illegal” act.
[See comments for screenshot of text]
It will be quite hard for Hegseth to get around that example.
But if we’re *not* at war, as many argue, because Congress has not authorized this military action, then per the Former JAG Working Group, “orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would subject everyone from SECDEF down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under U.S. law for murder.”
In sum, it was either a war crime or it was murder. Time to choose your poison, Pete. (Ironically, Hegseth is probably better off trying to argue that the U.S. is *not* actually at war, because as I’ll explain below, war crimes are much harder to escape than murder charges.)
Fox News’ chief legal analyst, Andy McCarthy, was equally unforgiving. He penned an OpEd for the National Review entitled, *“We Intended the Strike To Be Lethal” Is Not A Defense*. McCarthy was referring to Hegseth’s initial response to the reporting, in which he failed to deny the reporting and instead doubled down, citing the “lethal kinetic” intent of the operation (whatever that means).
The Washington Post had reported that Adm. Mitch Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, in compliance with Hegseth’s command, gave the order for the second strike. Ostensibly, this was to ensure the survivors couldn’t call on other traffickers to come to their aid.
Wrote McCarthy, “Neither Hegseth’s statement nor the explanation attributed to Bradley...makes legal sense.” Indeed, Hegseth’s argument is entirely circular: “It cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one’s objective was ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’”
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor, conservative legal expert on executive action and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, published a piece on Saturday concluding the same:
'[T]here can be no conceivable legal justification for what the Washington Post reported earlier today: That U.S. Special Operations Forces killed the survivors of a first strike on a drug boat off the coast of Trinidad who, in the Post’s words, “were clinging to the smoldering wreck.”'
Goldsmith cited the DoD Law of War Manual as well, noting Section 5.4.7’s clear prohibition on “No Quarter” orders:
'*Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given*. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.'
Goldsmith observes that this prohibition is a foundational principle of modern war, going back to the Hague Regulations of 1907 and even to the Civil War era 1863 Lieber Code: “Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed.”
As Just Security’s Ryan Goodman observed, the World War II Peleus War Crimes Trial is also on point. The trial was named after a Greek frigate used by the British and sunk by a German U-boat, where the commander ordered survivors fired upon while they were still in the water. The case is familiar to international and military lawyers alike. At the conclusion of the case, which kicked off the Nuremberg trials in Germany, the N@zi commanders who gave the “no quarter” order were convicted along with those who carried it out, with three of the defendants sentenced to death for their war crimes.
**No quarter from Congress
We’re so accustomed to the GOP-led Congress doing nothing in response to the criminal excesses of the Trump regime that any movement in the opposite direction makes headlines. Over the weekend we were treated to such a surprise. Both the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees issued bipartisan statements promising thorough investigations and a “full accounting.”
The bipartisan part is key. Because the GOP controls both of those committees, that means subpoenas will actually issue, followed by hearings, under oath, for everyone in the chain of command. That includes Defense Secretary Hegseth.
So far, Hegseth is getting little love from his own party, signaling that he is in for some rough questioning. Rep. Don Bacon (D-NE), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, agreed that if the Washington Post reporting is true, that would be “a clear violation of the law of war.” And Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), another senior member of that committee, remarked on the double-strike to comply with Hegseth’s reported order:
'“If that occurred, that would be very serious and I agree that would be an illegal act…This is completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress and there is an ongoing investigation.”'
[See comments for link to clip]
As Goodman notes, that short statement contains two distinct points. First, Turner agrees that the order would be an “illegal act”—something nearly everyone agrees on. Second, and critically, Turner implied that the true purpose of the double-strike was something *not disclosed to Congress*.
In fact, as the Washington Post reported, the Joint Special Operations Command later told the White House a different story: that the “double-tap” was intended to sink the boat and remove a possible hazard to other ships and not to kill survivors. A similar explanation was provided to Congress in closed-door briefings.
But that never sat well with more experienced veterans in Congress. “The idea that wreckage from one small boat in a vast ocean is a hazard to marine traffic is patently absurd, and killing survivors is blatantly illegal,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), a Marine Corps veteran serving on the House Armed Services Committee. “Mark my words: It may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder.”
**A mini-Nuremberg?
While Hegseth and whoever else participated in the killings won’t initially be on trial, congressional hearings could rise to the level of high international drama. After all, the question will be whether the U.S. Secretary of Defense is either a war criminal, a murderer or both.
A few key things to watch for. The former Southern Command leader, Admiral Alvin Holsey, announced back in mid-October that he was resigning from his office not even a full year into his term. That raised alarms over what could be driving such a move, but now we have more clues—and more questions. What did Admiral Holsey know about Hegseth’s orders? Was his resignation in connection with the second strike? The timing certainly suggests a link.
Then there are the two sources cited within the Washington Post’s reporting who confirmed that Hegseth gave the no quarter kill order, as well as everyone under Hegseth who carried out the illegal instruction. Those under Hegseth may be justifiably concerned about their own criminal liability, particularly those who ultimately pulled the trigger. Depending on the circumstances, it might be possible for Congress to offer limited immunity to those in the know in order to overcome their Fifth Amendment assertions.
Hegseth himself will likely be called and placed under oath, where he might also assert his right against self-incrimination. But if he does so, two things to consider: 1) demands for Hegseth’s resignation, if he hasn’t quit or been forced out already, will grow deafening, and 2) this still doesn’t mean he can’t later be convicted of murder or of a war crime.
On the latter charge, Hegseth will need to consider his position carefully, especially over whether the U.S. is legally at war. After all, per the Justice Department’s Guide To Human Rights Statutes, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes, per 18 U.S.C.§ 3281 (if the commission of a war crime results in death, prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations.) Nor does the President’s pardon power under the Constitution extend to violations of *international* law when prosecuted under the laws of another country. (The U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so this gets into murky questions of jurisdiction and venue.)
**Hegseth’s past writings and actions will come back to bite him
During upcoming hearings, congressional questioners will have a wealth of material. Much of it will come from Hegseth himself, who graciously wrote an entire book in 2024 containing his thoughts and disdain for things like the Geneva Conventions and legal oversight of military actions. As Anna Bower of Lawfare observed, there’s an entire chapter in the book entitled “More Lethality, Less (sic) Lawyers.”
[See comments for screenshot]
In his writings, Hegseth showed open disdain for international laws and norms regarding warfare. He stated,
'Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: If you surrender, we *might* spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to the hogs.”'
And continued,
'Makes me wonder, in 2024—if you want to win—how can anyone write universal rules about killing other people in open conflict? Especially against enemies who fight like savages, disregarding human life in every single instance. Maybe instead, we are just fighting with one hand behind our back—and the enemy knows it.'
Hegseth’s past actions also reflect his writings. He once openly and successfully lobbied Trump to pardon soldiers accused and convicted of war crimes. The move was highly controversial within the military, and no doubt many opposed to his efforts have not forgotten the stain it left on the reputation of our armed forces.
**Trump sees the writing on the dumpster
There’s a key unanswered question still looming. If Hegseth gave the double-tap kill order, did he clear it first with his boss? The gravity of the circumstance would suggest that Trump was in the know about the attack. After all, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted, Trump gave the initial order to fire upon the alleged drug smuggling vessel.
Shortly after it happened, Trump posted an edited version of the attack that showed the first strike. But he did not post footage of the double-tap lethal strike.
So why wouldn’t Trump have approved, or at least know about, the second strike?
Trump is already moving to distance himself from such a claim. Asked about Hegseth’s second order while on board Air Force One, Trump said, “He said he didn’t do it.” When pressed if he would be okay if Hegseth *had* done it, Trump answered, “He said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision.”
For a man of his size and age, that’s pretty good dodgeball.
Trump also insisted, when asked by a reporter whether a second strike would be legal in his view, “I don’t know that that happened.” He added, “Pete said he did not even know what people were talking about.” Trump said he himself “wouldn’t have wanted a second strike” because “the first strike was very lethal. It was fine.”
So we are to believe Hegseth ordered the second strike without consulting Trump? That’s quite a war crime to commit without the cover of the Commander-in-Chief’s blessing. As Sam Stein of The Bulwark observed,
'The WH a bit shifty on this Venezuela double strike story.
Hegseth two days ago: “Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them.”
Trump tonight: “I wouldn’t have wanted a second strike... Pete said that didn’t happen.”'
Bottom line? Trump is now hiding behind what Hegseth *supposedly* told him. That way if and when the evidence shows otherwise, that Hegseth indeed gave an illegal double-tap kill order, Trump can claim Hegseth lied to him.
From there, Donald can back his big garbage truck right over Pete.'
***
To receive my daily piece on U.S. political and legal developments, follow this page or send me a friend request, then see the replies below to enroll at my site.
My work is supported by subscriptions, so if you’re able to help, consider becoming a paid supporter.

[Rideback]

Investing with Trump is a great way to LOSE money:
* $DJT (Trump Media) stock DOWN 75% since inauguration day
* Trump meme coin DOWN 86% since inauguration day
* Melania meme coin DOWN 99% since inauguration day
* Trump family's World Liberty Financial token DOWN 40% since its September launch
Everything Trump Touches Dies, #ETTD
Now he is using billions of taxpayer money to make investments. What could go wrong!?

[Rideback]

Conservative publication The National Review posts a piece by a Rep lawyer about the illegal Hegseth order to Seal Team 6
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... a-defense/

[Rideback]

Columbo meme responds:
"“Ah, just one more thing, sir. You’re blowing up those boats, saying they’re filled with drugs headed for the US. But then you go and pardon the guy who brought in 400 tons of cocaine. That’s billions of doses. Help me understand that.”

[mister_coffee]

In truth what we are dealing with is very fragile people who need to appear strong and think the only way to do that is to harm others they perceive as weak. All in spite of their hideous evil I find them pitiable individuals.

[Rideback]

The Four-Star Who Walked Away Mid-War
Admiral Holsey and the Breaking Point Inside the Pentagon
White Rose USA (November(
Admiral Alvin Holsey didn’t storm out of SOUTHCOM. He didn’t plead his case on cable news or leak to friendly reporters. He did something far more unsettling. He left quietly, early, and in the middle of an active lethal campaign that carried his signature on every operational line. That’s the kind of silence Washington should actually fear, because it’s the kind that means the institution itself has started to feel the floor shift.
The timeline is the part the White House hopes you never look at too closely. The boat-strike campaign began on September 2, 2025. The first engagement killed eleven people, including the remaining survivors who were hit by a controversial follow-up missile. By mid-November there had been twenty-one strikes and eighty-three deaths. These weren’t cartel gunboats. Many were fishing skiffs and migrant craft — civilian vessels under international law — and that distinction matters to anyone who still cares about the difference between counter-narcotics operations and war crimes.
Every one of these strikes ran through Holsey’s area of responsibility. Each target packet, each justification, each battle damage assessment passed somewhere across his desk. When you’re a four-star running a combatant command, you don’t get to claim ignorance. If the law is solid, you defend the operation. If the law starts to shimmer, you feel it.
By October 6, that shimmer had become a crack. CNN later confirmed a tense Pentagon meeting involving Holsey, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine. SOUTHCOM’s legal advisers raised concerns: the combatant status of the people being killed, the authority for lethal force, the question of proportionality, and whether these missions could withstand scrutiny from the courts or the world. The meeting didn’t resolve the concerns. It hardened them.
Ten days later, Holsey announced he would retire. No explanation. No justification. Just a perfectly crafted statement about duty, honor, and the Constitution after nearly four decades of service. Admirals like Holsey don’t churn out of command after eleven months unless something fundamental has shifted underneath them. He wasn’t the type to grandstand. Holsey was known for running cold, steady, exact. When precise people leave early, the problem isn’t temperament. It’s the terrain.
This is where the story leaves the Pentagon and enters the political bloodstream. A group of six Democratic lawmakers — led by Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain still under the UCMJ — released a video reminding service members that their oath is to the Constitution and that illegal orders must be refused. This wasn’t a civics lesson. It was a signal directed at command. And it came at a moment when the officer corps had already felt the internal strain.
The White House responded the only way insecure administrations respond: with intimidation. Instead of explaining the legal theory behind the strikes, instead of addressing the casualties, instead of defending the doctrine, they sent the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division to “contact” the lawmakers for interviews. You don’t deploy counterterrorism agents against elected officials unless you think the chain of command is wobbling. The public may not have noticed the tremor yet. The political operators did.
Add one more layer. On September 23, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro stood before the UN and formally asked the International Criminal Court to investigate the United States for these strikes. That was unprecedented. And while the UK hasn’t issued any formal withdrawal, reporting indicates that some allies were quietly distancing themselves from the operation. You don’t need a coalition memo to know when partners are backing away from your battlefield.
Some will say Holsey simply retired. That this is coincidence. Sure. Coincidences happen. But they usually don’t arrive bundled with internal legal objections, escalating civilian casualties, ICC pressure, and the FBI leaning on lawmakers for quoting the oath every E-1 memorizes in basic training. Patterns are patterns.
What Holsey did wasn’t dramatic. But it was decisive. A combatant commander stepping out mid-mission isn’t just changing jobs. He’s removing his name from the legal trail investigators will follow later. He’s refusing to be the hinge between an unlawful order and the officer who carried it out. He’s stepping aside before the history books start taking attendance.
Democracies don’t collapse all at once. They fray at the edges first — in quiet rooms, in strained meetings, in polite statements from people who know exactly which line has just been crossed. Holsey didn’t shout. He didn’t need to. His silence is the loudest evidence in the whole affair. And the louder the White House screams at lawmakers instead of explaining the law, the clearer it becomes who actually feels threatened.
Holsey walked because he saw the edge. And he wasn’t about to go over it with the people giving the orders.
Annotated Sources
Boat-strike timeline, casualties, and follow-up missile
• CNN: First strike on September 2, 2025 kills eleven; survivors hit by follow-up missile.
• Wikipedia aggregate: Twenty-one strikes, eighty-three deaths by mid-November.
October 6 Pentagon meeting and legal concerns
• CNN: Tense meeting involving Hegseth, Holsey, and Chairman Dan Caine; SOUTHCOM lawyers question legality, combatant status, proportionality.
Holsey’s October 16 resignation
• Reuters: Holsey announces retirement after less than a year in command.
• AP/Guardian: Early departure noted as unusual for a combatant commander.
Lawmakers’ oath video
• CNN: Video by Senator Kelly, Rep. Slotkin, and four other Democratic House members; explicit invocation of refusal of illegal orders; Kelly under UCMJ.
FBI Counterterrorism Division inquiry
• New York Times: CTD agents contact lawmakers for interviews after the video.
Colombia’s ICC request
• President Gustavo Petro’s September 23, 2025 UN General Assembly speech formally requesting an ICC investigation.
Ally distancing
• Contextual reporting indicating quiet unease among partners; no formal UK withdrawal confirmed.
#Holsey #SOUTHCOM #Pentagon #BoatStrikes #WarCrimes #UCMJ #MarkKelly #Hegseth #ICC #Colombia #RuleOfLaw #ChainOfCommand #WhiteRoseUSA #Accountability #MilitaryEthics"
Bruce Fanger