More than 80 people killed in campaign that law-of-war experts have labeled extrajudicial murder

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly gave a verbal order to leave no survivors behind as Donald Trump’s administration launched the first of more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-running boats that have killed more than 80 people over the last three months.

On September 2, U.S. military personnel fired a missile striking a vessel in the Caribbean that carried 11 people accused of trafficking drugs into the United States.

When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, a Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions to “kill everybody,” according to The Washington Post, citing officials with direct knowledge of the operation.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 130 points 9 months ago (13 children)

If they didn't kill everyone, it's possible one of them would be able to prove there were no drugs and this is just racism...

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    It probably was drugs - but that is not the point. It's wildly unethical and a violation of many rules of war to simply kill people like they are doing.

    We don't summarily execute people at the president's say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago

    Seriously. Even domestically they aren't allowed to just waltz into a drugden and open fire.

    I mean, they still do but they are least have the claim that they fired in self defence. Not so much when you do it with drone strikes and missiles.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 112 points 9 months ago (20 children)

    If anybody is still under the impression that someone somewhere in the chain of command might refuse illegal orders, this tells you everything you need to know

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago* (15 children)

    Unfortunately the US doesn't consider that one to be an illegal order. It is heartless, and unnecessary. But ever since the advent of airpower the US has maintained that planes, helicopters, and drones are not required to accept surrender because it is impractical to impossible in any given situation. So the standard is usually to keep firing. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom had notable exceptions with mass surrender instructions dropped beforehand. And again, I know that's not reassuring. But this is why politics isn't supposed to be a team game. This is the level of power we are making decisions on. For other things that are completely legal but most people don't realize; heavy machineguns can absolutely be used to target individual soldiers; Flamethrowers are still 100 percent legal against military targets; You can be shot after your surrender is accepted, (I'll expand below); You will be shot if you do not or cannot actively surrender; and Nobody respects the rule against shooting medics and medevacs.

    To expand on the most inflammatory one, the only time you are "safe" is while you are in custody. Modern combat operations move very fast and surrendering people are often left in place after their weapons are removed/destroyed. If they don't actively surrender again to follow on forces then they are legal targets because we haven't developed psychic powers yet. This especially matters with surrendered wounded who may not be in a condition to surrender again. Shooting bodies as you advance is legal and expected in a war. You just aren't allowed to personally go back and shoot someone again without them presenting a new threat. With that information in mind you should also know the US military and any professional military sends multiple waves across a battlefield. It is incredibly lethal, by design.

    I say all this not to call you out but to highlight that war is a giant bag of dicks that most people outside the military are still naïve about.

    The other pressing thing here is this is an order to fire on a declared enemy, outside our border. Meaning the president signed a sheet of paper declaring them to be the enemy, Congress hasn't thrown a flag, and they are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement. That is very clear cut to the military. If you change any one of those 3 parameters then things go to gray zone or illegal very quickly. Someone asked me some months ago while Trump was vomiting about Greenland if the military would obey that order versus an order to hunt down and kill Americans inside America. And the answer is Greenland would be fucked but those Americans are pretty safe from the military. They are not however safe from anonymous DOJ task forces and DHS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    What would even be an illegal order?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    To use force against Americans inside America without martial law, an act of Congress, or an extenuating circumstance like self defense.

    Trump really pushed the envelope by ordering troops to accompany ICE raids under the authorization to guard federal property. But they still couldn't do anything but defend themselves technically. It's just that he effectively tied their self defense to the ICE agents defense. I'm pretty sure the courts knocked that one back and the military pulled back though. Which is why they've gone so hard with Border Patrol, ICE, and any volunteers from within DHS/DOJ that have badges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 65 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    11 people? There were 11 people on the boat? There's no fucking way that was a drug smuggling boat. 11 people means at least nine people's worth of weight that can't be dedicated to drugs.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    The "I was just following orders" defense is gonna be used a loooot in the future

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 44 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Does the Hague not investigate war crimes?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (14 children)

    It is literally a crime against humanity to declare no quarter be given.

    Edit: US Code literally prescribes death for war crimes when that crime results in death: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section2441&num=0&edition=prelim

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 9 months ago

    I'm a world where laws mattered those words would haunt him all the way to the gallows.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago

    Dont worry everyone. Republicans will praise the pedophile and friends through tweets. The Democrats will post a mildly worded tweet. No one will actually do anything.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Won't be the last time he issues that command

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 16 points 9 months ago

    It's not a warcrime if you've never formally declared war points finger at temple.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    What's the conversion rate on Venezuelans to Austrian Archdukes?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Our ancestors didn't defy kings, battle their own wayward countrymen, charge trenches, and rush fortified beaches headlong into the jaws of death. . .

    . . .for. This. Whatever the disgraceful hell this is.

    About now, every real patriot for what's good about this country should feel a profound and gnawing agony at every passing day these monsters aren't held to account and rendered incapable of further harm to humanity, whatever form that would take.

    We need to make it loud and clear that if "the other team" in places of power doesn't use every single tool at their disposal to end this threat IMMEDIATELY, they are complicit fools and will be held accountable as accomplices to whatever untold horrors would await us, should we refuse to hold the line.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    Usual america terrorist moment

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    God you can just tell that he gets off on the feeling that he had the power to kill people. Gets him moist.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    America: ill do it again!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    But Americans won’t take Hegseth out because that would just be so uncouth and WE WOULD BE NO BETTER THAN HIM.

    Cowards.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Man I knew he said that but I didn't know it was in that context. Murderous fucker!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    As I understand, not a single one of these boats were even remotely capable of making it to America to begin with. Not without refueling, which isn’t likely that we’re set up for it.

    This was all a coordinated targeted mass murder right in front of our faces and they need to be tried and punished for every one.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›