More about a Possible War Crime

Yesterday I wrote about the attacks being launched by the United States military against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. I specifically focused on new reporting about the first of the attacks, which occurred on September 2. The new accounts claimed that after the initial strike, which severely damaged the boat and killed most of the 11 occupants of the craft, a second missile strike was launched in order to kill two survivors who were seen clinging to the wreckage. Killing survivors in this manner is almost universally considered to be a war crime, and such an example is included in the Department of Defense's "Law of War" manual in order to illustrate an illegal order that military personnel have a duty to refuse. After publishing the article, I added an update due to remarks by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Leavitt confirmed that there indeed had been multiple strikes but denied that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had given an order to kill the survivors. In light of Leavitt's remarks and other developments yesterday, I think it is worth continuing to consider this topic.

As I wrote yesterday, the Washington Post reported that prior to the first missile strike, Hegseth had given a verbal order to "kill everybody." Subsequent to the first strike, Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, the commander overseeing the operation from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, then ordered a second strike to kill the survivors. Bradley apparently believed that he was carrying out Hegseth's orders. Because this was almost certainly an unlawful order and could constitute either murder or a war crime, both Hegseth and Bradley risk serious legal repercussions. Perhaps for this reason, both Hegseth and cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump sought to distance themselves from the order for the second strike. Whereas President Harry S. Truman once had a sign on his desk saying, "The Buck Stops Here," Trump and Hegseth clearly believe that the buck stops anywhere but with them. The appearance that Hegseth may be throwing Bradley under the bus is a potentially significant development for his relationship with the military.

The distancing from the second strike began with Trump, who, when asked about the attack, stated, "But no, I wouldn’t have wanted that, not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal, it was fine, and if there were two people around. But Pete said that didn’t happen. I have great confidence in him." It should be noted that immediately after the attack, Hegseth claimed that "I watched it live." If that is the case, Hegseth would have witnessed the survivors attempting to save themselves and, likely, would have heard the order to initiate a second strike. Hegseth's supposed ignorance now is hardly believable. Hegseth's initial reaction to the Washington Post report was to call it "fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory," while confirming that the attacks were meant to be lethal with the goal of killing the smugglers. Later, however, Hegseth issued a second statement that on its face appeared to stand behind Bradley but actually placed full responsibility on the Admiral. The statement began by saying, "Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support." However, it then went on to say "I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission..." In other words, Hegseth wants to make clear that the second strike on September 2 was Bradley's decision.

I want to back up for a second just to clarify one thing. There is considerable focus on the second strike on September 2 because killing survivors is so widely accepted as an indisputable war crime. The case of the Peleus, a Greek freighter torpedoed by a German submarine during World War II in which survivors were fired on, is widely known among military officers. The German submarine captain and two crew members were later tried, convicted, and executed for their roles in the attack. However, the initial attack by U.S. forces on September 2 and all subsequent attacks are also likely to be unlawful. The United States is not currently in a state of war with Venezuela or any of the other countries from which crew members who have been killed originated. Trump claims that the boat occupants are enemy combatants because they are members of designated "narco-terrorist" groups. However, that designation is not sufficient to authorize armed attacks. There has been no Congressional approval of the military action. It is important to remember that even drug smugglers have a right to due process and it is illegal to summarily execute individuals for such offenses. Indeed, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is currently detained at The Hague precisely because he ordered the murder without due process of individuals involved in the illegal drug trade. There is virtually nothing separating the acts of Hegseth and Duterte. For this reason, some have suggested that it might be appropriate to begin referring to Hegseth as Hagueseth.

What's more, the likelihood of a war crime having been committed in the second strike on September 2 is such that even Republicans can't ignore it. Republican Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has announced that he will conduct a congressional investigation into the matter. In the House of Representatives, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Adam Smith issued a joint statement saying that the House Armed Services Committee is “committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Department of Defense’s military operations in the Caribbean” and promised their own investigation. Neither Hegseth nor Bradley likely look forward to testifying before congressional committees. Moreover, while the specific focus is likely to be on the second strike, the entire operation will probably to be questioned.

Neither Hegseth nor Bradley are likely to see the inside of a U.S. courtroom. However, as I wrote yesterday, because they are both likely violating international law, they may find themselves unable to travel outside the U.S. for fear of being arrested. But legal consequences may not be the only repercussions that Hegseth faces. He has been a constant source of embarrassment for Trump. He posted classified information on an unclassified Signal chat conversation that included a journalist. He ordered all high-ranking military officers to drop everything and rush to Washington so that Hegseth could give them a speech. He invited Elon Musk to a classified briefing on the military's war plans for a conflict with China. Hegseth was overlooked for a role in Russia-Ukraine peace talks, with Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll getting the call instead.

The New York Times nonchalantly mentioned towards the end of an article yesterday that "Mr. Driscoll is close to Mr. Vance, and often considered a likely candidate for defense secretary should the job open." The obvious question here is whether the Times has any knowledge that the job might become available? Coincidentally, all around crazy person Laura Loomer, who is now an accredited Pentagon correspondent, posted yesterday an "EXCLUSIVE" that "SECRETARY OF THE ARMY’S OFFICE PLOTTING COUP AT THE PENTAGON TO REMOVE @SecWar PETE HEGSETH AND REPLACE HIM WITH @SecArmy DAN DRISCOLL." It is highly likely that high-ranking military officers who have seen that Bradley's latest career placement was under the wheels of Hegseth's bus are more than happy to see Hegseth replaced. This is a group whose political maneuvering should not be overlooked. Driscoll may see that now is the time to make a move. I tend to see Loomer as mostly being an outlet for others who want to get their messages, whether they be true or false, out into the public. In this case, someone from Team Hegseth may well be using her to attempt to stop Driscoll in his tracks. Either way, I would not be putting any bets on Hegseth's longevity at this point.

The U.S. has very likely engaged in a series of extrajudicial killings of non-combatants, something that is also known as "murders." While that is disputed, almost nobody argues in favor of the killing of survivors of an attack. It is unclear whether what is either a war crime or outright murder was ordered by Hegseth, by Bradley due to his understanding of Hegseth's orders, or by Bradley on his own volition. Congressional committees will be looking into this. Regardless of the outcome of those investigations, this may be the end of the road for Hegseth. His clown show was never popular with the military and is likely getting old even for Trump. The best way to get past the question of a war crime may simply be to get rid of Hegseth, who may soon find that he has been thrown under Trump's bus.