The Washington Post reported that there was a second strike of the first boat alleged to be transporting drugs out of Venezuela.
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.
The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
As previously argued, the first strike was illegal. But even if one assumes that’s debatable, there is no question that the second strike was murder. Secretary of War Defense Pete Hegseth gave the order to kill everybody.
The WaPo report was based “on interviews with and accounts from seven people with knowledge of the Sept. 2 strike and the overall operation,” all anonymous in the story. While this sourcing is facially significant, the anonymity of the sources raises the possibility that the story might not be accurate. For many of the MAGA faithful, that’s more than enough to dismiss any possibility that Hegseth ordered the killing of two helpless survivors. For many more of the MAGA faithful, they just don’t care if it was murder.
The replies to this twit are illuminating. https://t.co/IPPymllZlt
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) November 29, 2025
But was it murder? Before facing the question as to the survivors, the initial strike should not be sloughed off.
The alleged traffickers pose no imminent threat of attack against the United States and are not, as the Trump administration has tried to argue, in an “armed conflict” with the U.S., these officials and experts say. Because there is no legitimate war between the two sides, killing any of the men in the boats “amounts to murder,” said Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign.
But for those who buy whatever nonsensical rationalization proffered by Trump for killing people on the high seas, can they similarly pretend killing two helpless survivors clinging to the wreckage is acceptable? Jack Goldsmith calls it “A Dishonorable Strike.”
One might also, possibly, stretch the laws of war to say that attacks on the drug boats are part of a “non-international armed conflict,” as OLC has reportedly concluded. This line of argument likely draws on a super-broad conception of the threat posed by the alleged drug runners as well as the expansive U.S. post-9/11 justification for treating as targetable (i) dangerous non-state actor terrorists off the battlefield; (ii) those who merely “substantially support” the groups with whom one is in an armed conflict; and (iii) activities that provide economic support to the war effort, such as Taliban drug labs or ISIS oil trucks. I don’t think this argument comes close to working without deferential reliance on a bad faith finding by the president about the non-international armed conflict and much greater stretches of precedent than the United States previously indulged after 9/11. Still, the unconvincing argument is conceivable.
But there 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.”
Of course, Goldsmith’s assertion, that there can be “no conceivable legal justification” for these murders are only meaningful if one cares about the law, about not engaging in illegal conduct and not committing murder. As Anne Bower of Lawfare notes, that’s not Hegseth.
An entire chapter in Hegseth’s book is literally titled “More Lethality, Less Lawyers.”
It’s almost as if the signs were there all along. pic.twitter.com/913W07O8a8
— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) November 29, 2025
It’s murder. It’s illegal. It’s dishonorable. And the MAGA faithful just don’t give a damn.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Less” lawyers, not fewer? The man is illiterate to boot.
If nothing else, the replies from the MAGAts leaves little doubt that they are dullards. Since you can’t fix stupid, the only hope is that they will find a new god who’s a little less venal than Trump. But as of now, they really don’t care what crimes are committed by him or in his name, and still they believe they are the good guys.
[Ed. Note: Thank you, H. Your efforts are deeply appreciated.]
Likewise, Admiral.
At some point the regime will change. The new people will declare the boat strikes were war crimes. The only question is how far down the chain the trials will go.
Political leaders and upper echelon military? Sure. The pilots? I was just following orders is no defense. The air crews that loaded the aircraft? They knew the missiles were going to be used to kill people. The civilian workers that made the munitions? I can see the reach.
The only question is, where will it end?
The “new people” won’t file the cases, because they will be looking to the day when they will also kill in derogation of the same “international laws.” Just as the current administration brought no charges for illegal drone killings, the next administration will bring no charges for these killings.
This. Whichever side of the Uniparty comes in it will want to use the same powers on ITS chosen “enemies.” And the out-of-power party will scream and holler, pretending that there’s illegal and immoral stuff going on, but in reality more of a tantrum because it’s not their turn to be pulling the levers of power.
PS: No offense meant, Mr. G., but “the replies to this twit are illuminating” is subject to … unfortunate misinterpretation.
[Ed. Note: It’s a long-standing peccadillo and distinguishes those familiar with my evil ways from those who are not.]
Aha! The peccadillo occurred and was explained during one of my hiatuses (hiati?) from this fine establishment.
Thank you for the pointing-out!
PS: Why do I envision a peccadillo as some sort of weird post-apocalyptic armored “pig-like ungulate?”
Having been born and raised in the UK, I have always known the word “twit” to mean a silly or stupid person, a mild term compared to some others. If you Google (following Rule 1, No URLs, SHG Rules of Practice and Procedure) “Is the T-word offensive-Tom Geoghegan-BBC News Magazine,” you will find an apt description of the word and some of its usage. Cheers.
SS Peleus
[Ed. Note: I’m posting this because it may have some meaning that eludes me, but I have no clue what you’re trying to say, if anything.]
The U boat commander took it upon himself to kill the survivors of the SS Peleus, not on the orders of his superiors.
Is the situation the same? I’m not a lawyer so I won’t step into that mess as I know my limits.
KG is very much on point – SS Peleus was sunk by U-852. The captain of the U-Boat ordered the life boats and floating debris to be destroyed to hide the evidence of the sinking, but didn’t get all the survivors in the dark.
After the war the captain, engineer and doctor of the U-Boat who did the shooting were all tried in the Hamburg war trials, convicted and sentenced to death. All three were executed by firing squad.
In brief, the SS Peleus was attacked by a U-boat during WWII. The U-boat commander attempted to kill all survivors, although he did not entirely succeed.
Much depends on whether you are on the winning or losing side.
German sub commander – war crime & execution.
American sub commander (Mush Morton & the WAHOO) – Navy Cross.
Pretty much the same facts.
Apologies, I thought the SS Peleus case was well known.
Eck et al were executed upon being tried and found guilty of shooting survivors in the water after SS Peleus had been torpedoed and sunk by U-852.
[Ed. Note: Apparently, it is well known, and I’m just clueless. My apologies.]
Google “Heinz-Wilhelm Eck U-Boat commander SS Peleus” You should get lots to read about the U-Boat commander who killed the survivors of the SS Peleus he’d torpedoed. Unfortunately for him there was a survivor. He was convicted and sentenced to death. Some others of his crew were also prosecuted.
“Eck’s defense rested completely on the grounds of “operational necessity.” He claimed that the initial reason for bringing weapons to the deck was because he feared an attempt by the survivors to take control of the U-boat, claiming to have heard of cases where this had happened. Then, he said, he decided to destroy the rafts and other floating wreckage so that they would not reveal the presence of his submarine to a patrolling aircraft.”
David Miller, The Peleus War Crimes Trial. 11 Naval History, Naval Institute Press, Feb. 1997.
That’s not a defense.
Nowadays, Navy commanders have Chapter 3, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, and Article 0925, U.S. Naval Regulations, for guidance–and yes, their JAGOFFs. The grapevine suggests any number of JAGOFFs have been trying to push back.
You can also read “Legal Experts Accuse Hegseth of ‘War Crimes, Murder, or Both’ After New Reporting on Boat Strike Order” which is a good primer by “The Former JAGs Working Group” that unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both” and is a statement on effectively a “no quarters” order if true.
The defendants were not allowed to object to the jurisdiction or composition of the court. Accounts of the trial acknowledge that international precedents were cited on behalf of the defendants, but these are generally not identified. The trial is an example of how “international law” generally serves the interests of the victors.
Right. And there has always been criticism of victor’s justice flowing from the Nuremberg and Yamashita trials, when it is true that Allied servicemembers or units similarly committed war crimes. And we have our own more recent examples from Iraq and Afghanistan. Some offenders were convicted and sentenced at court-martial, then pardoned by President Trump.
I suspect that 90% of the people you’re talking with on Twitter are bots. I don’t know any Trump supporters (a shrinking class; many are now former Trump supporters) who approve of Trump’s recent moves. Those who still defend him are falling back to “Well, Kamala would have been worse”, or from Christian Zionists “At least he’s still supporting Israel (to create an apocalyptic world war, and then Jesus will come and take me to heaven.)”
Within and without “the MAGA faithful,” the absence of outcry is due to the absence of any unusual event. This is simply par for the course, as international law (if it is even a thing) has been treated as optional for the U.S. on weekends, holidays and days that end in “y.” The objective of every targeted drone killing has been to make sure the target was dead. “Unarmed” has never mattered. Misidentification has never mattered. Collateral deaths have always been acceptable. The classical version of the order ends with the phrase, “and let God sort them out.” Hegseth is a continuation of a pattern, not an outlier.
I note on one notable antiwar website today that the Secretary of War is now claiming he was long gone when the second strike on the survivors was ordered and it was all on the Military Guy In Charge…
[Ed. Note: His official title has been changed to “fall guy.”]
Yes, the bus is CBDR– on a closing bearing, with decreasing range.
That’d be “General Fall Guy” to you. Don’t forget to salute……. 🙂
[Ed. Note: Us admirals get to be familiar with each other.]
“Admiral Fall Guy,” please. -:)