The United States military is grappling with a significant legal and political crisis following allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a directive to “kill everybody” during a maritime strike in the Caribbean. This claim, reported by the Washington Post, has raised serious questions about the legality of the operation, prompting calls for accountability from lawmakers, legal experts, and international observers.
The incident occurred in early September 2023 during an operation known as Operation Southern Spear, aimed at targeting vessels purportedly linked to narcotics trafficking. A missile strike was executed against a suspected drug-trafficking boat near Trinidad, resulting in two individuals surviving the initial blast while clinging to debris. According to the report, following the strike, Hegseth allegedly ordered a second missile strike that killed the survivors.
Personnel from the Joint Special Operations Command, including operators from SEAL Team 6, were involved in the operation. The U.S. government characterized the targets as “unlawful combatants” associated with transnational narco-terrorist groups in the Caribbean and Pacific regions. Despite these claims, the Pentagon has not disclosed the identities of those killed or provided evidence linking them directly to drug trafficking, raising concerns about transparency and adherence to international law.
Legal experts, human rights organizations, and former prosecutors have expressed alarm over the implications of Hegseth’s alleged directive. They argue that targeting unarmed survivors could violate the Geneva Conventions, likening it to extrajudicial executions. Critics have also highlighted that justifying the second strike as necessary to eliminate a navigational hazard contradicts international maritime laws.
Responses from Congress have been swift, with members from both parties demanding investigations into the operation and the broader Southern Spear campaign. Concerns have been raised regarding the lack of congressional authorization, as this military action increasingly resembles an undeclared conflict. Lawmakers have also questioned the absence of intelligence confirming the alleged connections between the victims and criminal organizations.
The operation has reportedly resulted in over 20 maritime strikes since September, leading to at least 83 fatalities. As scrutiny intensifies, legislators warn that if the directive is confirmed, senior officials, including Hegseth, could face significant legal repercussions.
International reactions have also escalated, particularly from several Latin American governments, including Venezuela, which have condemned the strikes as unlawful extraterritorial killings. Human rights organizations have echoed these sentiments, arguing that the operation risks undermining global standards concerning the use of military force against civilian suspects and criminal groups.
As the situation unfolds, U.S. officials are facing increasing demands to release operational footage, legal authorizations, and intelligence assessments related to the decision-making process for the strikes. The debate over Hegseth’s directive has broadened into a critical discussion about transparency, legality, and the future of U.S. military engagements in drug warfare.
With mounting pressure from both domestic and international fronts, the U.S. defense apparatus stands at a pivotal crossroads, tasked with addressing the legal and ethical implications of its actions. The outcome of this situation could have far-reaching consequences not only for U.S. military policy but also for international relations and human rights norms.
