As bipartisan scrutiny grows…
Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor, issued a sharp critique of War Secretary Pete Hegseth after The Washington Post reported that Hegseth directed a follow-up strike on a destroyed vessel carrying alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers. According to the Post, the second strike killed two survivors who were clinging to debris after an initial hit.
McCarthy wrote that if the Post’s reporting is accurate and Hegseth ordered a second strike to eliminate survivors, the action would be “at best, a war crime under federal law.” He argued that the individuals no longer posed a military threat once their boat was destroyed and that narcotics trafficking is treated as a criminal matter, not an act of war.
He also rejected claims that the strike fell within what some described as “the laws and customs of honorable warfare,” noting that long-standing rules prohibit targeting people who are unable to fight, including shipwrecked survivors.
Mediaite’s Joe DePaolo provides further details:
“If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law,” McCarthy wrote. “I say ‘at best’ because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict.”
The Post reported that a second strike was ordered to take out two survivors who were clinging for life to the damaged ship. McCarthy said that giving the administration the benefit of the doubt wouldn’t change his view of that reported second strike.
“Even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, it is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight,” McCarthy wrote. “It is not permitted, under the laws and customs of honorable warfare, to order that no quarter be given — to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight.”
Hegseth, on X Friday, delivered a lengthy rebuttal to the Post report. But McCarthy notes that Hegseth “doesn’t actually rebut any assertion in the report.” McCarthy highlighted Hegseth saying, “As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes. The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.”
McCarthy sharply criticized the administration’s justification for the operation, arguing that neither Hegseth’s comments nor the rationale reportedly offered by operation commander Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley holds up under legal scrutiny. He warned that the government’s position raises serious concerns, saying the White House cannot simply fall back on the notion that lethal force was used because it was part of the plan.
Unnamed sources cited by the Post said Hegseth told teams early in the mission to “kill everybody” aboard the suspected drug boat. Adm. Bradley reportedly told colleagues that a second hit was required to carry out that directive.
Hegseth dismissed the Post’s reporting as “fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory,” insisting the operations were designed to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats and target what he called narco-terrorists. He accused the media of trying to undermine U.S. forces and described the strikes as “highly effective.” He added that “every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”
Nevertheless, the allegations have renewed questions about the legality and morality of U.S. military actions against suspected traffickers, especially when survivors are left defenseless. They also resurfaced concerns surrounding Hegseth’s past, including accusations of heavy drinking and a 2017 sexual assault allegation he settled for $50,000. Those issues contributed to his razor-thin 51-50 confirmation vote.
In a rare bipartisan move, two senior senators announced plans to investigate whether U.S. forces were ordered to kill everyone aboard the vessel. Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Jack Reed of Rhode Island said Saturday that they are aware of the recent reporting and the Pentagon’s initial response. They said their committee has already submitted inquiries and pledged “vigorous oversight.”
Wicker and Reed sent Hegseth a letter in late September reminding him of the legal requirement that military execute orders be sent to defense committees within 15 days. A follow-up letter in October asked the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to issue a formal opinion on the legality of the operations.
Other critics, including Rep. Ted Lieu of California, pointed to a memo that bars military or international law strikes on defenseless survivors. Lieu noted that there is generally no statute of limitations for war crimes.
Hegseth recently announced Operation Southern Spear, an initiative aimed at disrupting drug trafficking across the Western Hemisphere. The effort is being run by a new counternarcotics task force and U.S. Southern Command. Since September, the military has carried out more than 20 strikes on suspected drug vessels, resulting in over 80 deaths. The administration describes those killed as narco-terrorists.
Alongside the military push, the State Department labeled Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization, arguing President Nicolás Maduro oversees a state-run trafficking network.
President Trump himself has repeatedly indicated an interest in expanding operations beyond maritime targets.
READ NEXT: Horrid Accusations Against Alleged DC Shooter Ignite New Scrutiny
Why are you quoting these rinos and the stupidest Dem in congress here? Get a life.
It’s a war on drugs, they don’t care how many people their drugs kill
This was sloppy reporting. Obviously neither the reporter or the “expert” knew very little about military rules of engagement.
In a battle, second rounds are the rule. We do NOT put our soldiers at risk. The enemy knew the risks and chose to ignore.
Our soldiers will only engage in recovery if there are CLEAR signals of surrender.
The enemy may have boobytrapped their vessel or even the cargo containers.
The cargo was going to the bottom of the sea. Not left floating around the sea.
Writing an attention grabbing, sensationalist article such as this is a disgrace.
Get real facts, verity, and write a discussion piece on the risks and dangers of rescue of enemies that may be looking to create a headline sympathetic to their criminal activities.