A recent report from the Washington Post has sparked intense backlash against United States Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth for allegedly ordering a lethal strike on a suspected drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean. The incident, which took place in September, reportedly involved a strike force commanded to kill everyone on board the vessel, with a subsequent attack aimed at eliminating two survivors found in the wreckage.
According to the Post, one source familiar with the operation stated, “The order was to kill everybody,” leading to what some critics describe as a clear violation of both domestic and international law. Following the revelation, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman characterized the operation as a “textbook war crime/extrajudicial killing” on social media platform X. He further challenged the administration’s narrative, asserting that claims of the second strike being a necessary action to clear debris were misleading.
The strikes have been defended by former President Donald Trump, who asserted that they were directed at combating drug trafficking. In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the government possesses comprehensive intelligence about the vessels involved, stating, “We track them from the very beginning. We know who’s on them, who they are, where they’re coming from, what they have on them.”
Hegseth took to X to dismiss the Post’s report as “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory,” asserting that the operation was lawful under both U.S. and international law. He did not specifically address the details of the report, which have raised significant concerns among legal experts and commentators.
Critics have voiced their outrage over the alleged orders. Notable figures, including lawyer George Conway and political commentator David French, have expressed that such actions, if confirmed, would represent heinous violations of military ethics. Conway emphasized that the operation would amount to unlawful homicide, regardless of the context, while French condemned the act of killing helpless survivors as unequivocally illegal.
Public sentiment on social media reflects a growing demand for accountability. Several users have called for a Congressional investigation into the actions taken during the operation. Suggestions have emerged for the release of unredacted video footage of the strikes, alongside the radio communications that ordered them.
In a broader context, legal experts argue that the implications of this incident could extend far beyond the immediate circumstances. The Geneva Convention prohibits the killing of unarmed individuals who do not pose a threat, and many advocates are calling for a thorough examination of the decisions made by military and government officials.
The fallout from this report continues to unfold, with members of Congress urging an inquiry into the legality of Hegseth’s orders. Eugene Vindman, a Congressman, highlighted the necessity for transparency, demanding an investigation into the strike and accountability for those involved in issuing what he termed illegal orders.
The implications of this incident could resonate widely, as public discourse increasingly focuses on military ethics, the rules of engagement, and the necessity for accountability in military operations. As this situation develops, it remains to be seen how the administration will respond to the mounting pressure for clarity and justice in the wake of such serious allegations.
