Survivors on ‘narco boat’ targeted by Trump order were blown apart after Hegseth verbal command to ‘kill everybody’: Report
More than 80 people killed in campaign that law-of-war experts have labeled extrajudicial murder
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly gave a verbal order to leave no survivors behind as Donald Trump’s administration launched the first of more than a dozen attacks on alleged drug-running boats that have killed more than 80 people over the last three months.
On September 2, U.S. military personnel fired a missile striking a vessel in the Caribbean that carried 11 people accused of trafficking drugs into the United States.
When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, a Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions to “kill everybody,” according to The Washington Post, citing officials with direct knowledge of the operation.
like this
HumanOnEarth
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
thorhop
in reply to HumanOnEarth • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
minorkeys
in reply to HumanOnEarth • • •vrek
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
Azathoth, NoneOfUrBusiness, TVA e AGuyAcrossTheInternet like this.
atzanteol
in reply to vrek • • •It probably was drugs - but that is not the point. It's wildly unethical and a violation of many rules of war to simply kill people like they are doing.
We don't summarily execute people at the president's say.
like this
Get_Off_My_WLAN, TVA, emmanuel_car e AGuyAcrossTheInternet like this.
NoneOfUrBusiness
in reply to atzanteol • • •Yeah... no.
form of assassination carried by governments against their perceived enemies
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)atzanteol
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Pyr
in reply to atzanteol • • •Seriously. Even domestically they aren't allowed to just waltz into a drugden and open fire.
I mean, they still do but they are least have the claim that they fired in self defence. Not so much when you do it with drone strikes and missiles.
like this
TVA e NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
Maggoty
in reply to atzanteol • • •What do you think a war is? We already set the precedent of being able to declare war on non-state actors and the War Powers act gives him the authority to start shooting without Congressional approval. Which means an American President can legally, (to the US), tell the military they need to go kill cocaine farmers until Congress passes a bill to stop him. And the President can veto that bill. Meaning the legal threshold for Congress to stop the military from killing foreigners in foreign places is the same threshold as impeaching the President.
The War Powers resolution worked as long as it did because it was actually one of many gentleman's agreements that are now defunct.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Jhex
in reply to atzanteol • • •you actually do
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
atzanteol
in reply to Jhex • • •sh.itjust.works/comment/223907…
atzanteol
2025-11-29 07:33:52
☂️-
in reply to atzanteol • • •i doubt it was drugs. venezuela doesn't have an expressive drug trade and i don't remember the us offering any proof yet.
its just terrorism for an excuse to invade venezuela. more wmds.
and yes you do execute people without any due process when you go to war with a 3rd world country you want something from, thats pretty common.
FooBarrington
in reply to ☂️- • • •atzanteol
in reply to ☂️- • • •sh.itjust.works/comment/223907…
atzanteol
2025-11-29 07:33:52
radiofreebc
in reply to atzanteol • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
bthest
in reply to atzanteol • • •Based on what do you say it was PROBABLY drugs?
HailSeitan
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
AGuyAcrossTheInternet e NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
Maggoty
in reply to HailSeitan • • •Unfortunately the US doesn't consider that one to be an illegal order. It is heartless, and unnecessary. But ever since the advent of airpower the US has maintained that planes, helicopters, and drones are not required to accept surrender because it is impractical to impossible in any given situation. So the standard is usually to keep firing. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom had notable exceptions with mass surrender instructions dropped beforehand. And again, I know that's not reassuring. But this is why politics isn't supposed to be a team game. This is the level of power we are making decisions on. For other things that are completely legal but most people don't realize; heavy machineguns can absolutely be used to target individual soldiers; Flamethrowers are still 100 percent legal against military targets; You can be shot after your surrender is accepted, (I'll expand below); You will be shot if you do not or cannot actively surrender; and Nobody respects the rule against shooting medics and medevacs.
To expand on the most inflammatory one, the only time you are "safe" is while you are in custody. Modern combat operations move very fast and surrendering people are often left in place after their weapons are removed/destroyed. If they don't actively surrender again to follow on forces then they are legal targets because we haven't developed psychic powers yet. This especially matters with surrendered wounded who may not be in a condition to surrender again. Shooting bodies as you advance is legal and expected in a war. You just aren't allowed to personally go back and shoot someone again without them presenting a new threat. With that information in mind you should also know the US military and any professional military sends multiple waves across a battlefield. It is incredibly lethal, by design.
I say all this not to call you out but to highlight that war is a giant bag of dicks that most people outside the military are still naïve about.
The other pressing thing here is this is an order to fire on a declared enemy, outside our border. Meaning the president signed a sheet of paper declaring them to be the enemy, Congress hasn't thrown a flag, and they are beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement. That is very clear cut to the military. If you change any one of those 3 parameters then things go to gray zone or illegal very quickly. Someone asked me some months ago while Trump was vomiting about Greenland if the military would obey that order versus an order to hunt down and kill Americans inside America. And the answer is Greenland would be fucked but those Americans are pretty safe from the military. They are not however safe from anonymous DOJ task forces and DHS.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
saimen
in reply to Maggoty • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
ProfessorScience
in reply to saimen • • •davad
in reply to saimen • • •Deploying regular military inside the US is illegal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Co…
pursuant to
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Lka1988
in reply to davad • • •arctanthrope
in reply to Lka1988 • • •Maggoty
in reply to saimen • • •To use force against Americans inside America without martial law, an act of Congress, or an extenuating circumstance like self defense.
Trump really pushed the envelope by ordering troops to accompany ICE raids under the authorization to guard federal property. But they still couldn't do anything but defend themselves technically. It's just that he effectively tied their self defense to the ICE agents defense. I'm pretty sure the courts knocked that one back and the military pulled back though. Which is why they've gone so hard with Border Patrol, ICE, and any volunteers from within DHS/DOJ that have badges.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Jhex
in reply to Maggoty • • •so nothing because the idiot king can declare martial law with no justification just as he has broken rules or laws over 200 times in less than a year
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Maggoty
in reply to Jhex • • •That's what these court battles in Los Angeles and Chicago have been about. I've been staying very top level but suffice to say he cannot just yell martial law and charge into a blue city. Laws describe when and how it is proper to do so. The court push back is important not because we think it will restrain Trump, but because the generals are not personally loyal to Trump. As a reminder, Trump wanted to shoot Americans in his first term. It was the establishment that told him no. He tried to directly order the military and a general literally yelled at him for it.
The threat is overwhelmingly from DHS and DOJ. They have the authority, ability, and will. ICE just got funded to an amount equal the British military. The only thing missing is the volunteers and the federal law enforcement training centers have pushed back training for anyone other than ICE to handle the glut of new ICE agents. ICE's detention budget is also now far larger than the federal prison budget. They could theoretically hold about 8 percent of the US population with the budget they got.
Everyone is worried about the military while our federal law enforcement is doing military style presence patrols in Los Angeles.
Top US general got into shouting match with Trump over race protests – report
Martin Pengelly (The Guardian)Jhex
in reply to Maggoty • • •I want to believe you/this, but honestly laws only matter when they are enforced and so far, it looks like nobody wants to enforce them against the Orange Pedo, therefore, he is subject to no laws
What gives you this impression? I have yet to see even hesitancy from any General in following any order so far
Yes but this second term is something else, everybody fell in line and the idiot king has SCOTUS bought and paid for
Precisely
HailSeitan
in reply to Maggoty • • •Jhex
in reply to Maggoty • • •and they'll do similar mental gymnastics forever…
the military won't save you Americans
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Dragonstaff
in reply to Maggoty • • •NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Randomgal
in reply to Dragonstaff • • •Dragonstaff
in reply to Randomgal • • •Then we have to stop that, don't we.
Stop rolling over in advance.
Randomgal
in reply to Dragonstaff • • •Maggoty
in reply to Dragonstaff • • •Oh it's definitely been US policy for decades. The videos are out there. If you want to talk about what constitutes being "out of combat" and whether the Hague would take the case it could certainly be an interesting exercise. However I doubt the Hague would take it up and neither the Department of Justice nor the military courts are going to take it up without a directive from the President. Democrats aren't going to fall all over themselves to give that directive either though because it would mean Biden and Obama also officially presided over a regime of war crimes.
At the end of the day it comes down to the US having X policy that lies in a gray area of international law. Which leads me to another Bush era policy that we've never really rescinded. If you're not a uniformed soldier in service to an enemy country the US doesn't consider you to have the protections that a soldier would have after surrendering. It was a neat little policy that we used to allow ourselves to torture people labeled terrorists. So yeah that's another thing I expect to hear in the next few days, "cartel members are unlawful combatants."
Fit_Series_573
in reply to HailSeitan • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
BarneyPiccolo
in reply to HailSeitan • • •HailSeitan
in reply to BarneyPiccolo • • •Dragonstaff
in reply to HailSeitan • • •Yes. If Americans haven't proved they're generally racist and Nationalistic, I don't know what else it would take.
It sounds like you're trying to make a gotcha, but it's quite fair to say a member of the military who murders Venezuelans at whim may still balk if ordered to kill white American.
kryptonianCodeMonkey
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
AGuyAcrossTheInternet likes this.
𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
linuxfiend e NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
Mossheart
in reply to 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍 • • •AgentRocket
in reply to Mossheart • • •DrDickHandler
in reply to 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍 • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
TammyTobacco
in reply to MicroWave • • •fluxx
in reply to TammyTobacco • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
BreadstickNinja
in reply to TammyTobacco • • •The U.S. doesn't recognize the ICC and sanctions its officials if they investigate war crimes by the U.S. or its allies.
We briefly ratified the Rome Statute in 2000 but pulled out shortly after invading Afghanistan and shortly before invading Iraq.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Darkness343
in reply to BreadstickNinja • • •Tryenjer
in reply to TammyTobacco • • •CannedYeet
in reply to Tryenjer • • •Since it's probably not clear to those unfamiliar, this is literally true.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American…
United States federal law enacted 2 August 2002
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Madison420
in reply to TammyTobacco • • •The us said it would invade the Hague of anyone were tried and attempted to be put on trial.
"all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American…
United States federal law enacted 2 August 2002
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)minorkeys
in reply to TammyTobacco • • •myfunnyaccountname
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Nomorereddit
in reply to MicroWave • • •Rooty
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
njm1314
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
answersplease77
in reply to njm1314 • • •it was not proven those boats were ~~not~~ carrying drugs nor have fuel capacity to reach the US coasts. They most likely killed fisher boats:
factually.co/fact-checks/justi…
OsrsNeedsF2P
in reply to answersplease77 • • •Was it? Because I can't find any reliable source corroborating that
answersplease77
in reply to OsrsNeedsF2P • • •the better description to say that it was not proven they were carrying drugs, and they were most likely fisher boats.
that's why they said legally they were proven not guilty of carrying drugs:
this website does good job providing sources to all claims:
factually.co/fact-checks/justi…
Eddbopkins
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
CleoCommunist
in reply to Eddbopkins • • •fartographer
in reply to MicroWave • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Darkness343
in reply to fartographer • • •Victor
in reply to MicroWave • • •Sunflier
in reply to MicroWave • • •It is literally a crime against humanity to declare no quarter be given.
Edit: US Code literally prescribes death for war crimes when that crime results in death: uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?re…
Randomgal
in reply to Sunflier • • •Sunflier
in reply to Randomgal • • •Randomgal
in reply to Sunflier • • •Sunflier
in reply to Randomgal • • •Randomgal
in reply to Sunflier • • •Bro the US literally has enshrined a law that authorizes them to 'legally' invade the Hague if any of them are tried or captired.
I wouldn't hold my breath. The ICC was always an extension of US imperialism.
Sunflier
in reply to Randomgal • • •Going to need a citation to the statute. Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see where it is for a better understanding.
X Doubt.
But, even if that were true, the ICC has carried forth good actualizations of justice.
Randomgal
in reply to Sunflier • • •Is googling too hard for you?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American…
Keep licking the boot.
United States federal law enacted 2 August 2002
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Sunflier
in reply to Randomgal • • •Randomgal
in reply to Sunflier • • •Sunflier
in reply to Randomgal • • •Sunflier
in reply to Randomgal • • •I think it depends on whether or not the next administration turns them over.
demonsword
in reply to Randomgal • • •CleoCommunist
in reply to Randomgal • • •Darkness343
in reply to Sunflier • • •WizardofFrobozz
in reply to MicroWave • • •But Americans won’t take Hegseth out because that would just be so uncouth and WE WOULD BE NO BETTER THAN HIM.
Cowards.
MonkeMischief
in reply to WizardofFrobozz • • •MonkeMischief
in reply to MicroWave • • •Our ancestors didn't defy kings, battle their own wayward countrymen, charge trenches, and rush fortified beaches headlong into the jaws of death. . .
**. . .for. This. Whatever the disgraceful hell this is.**
About now, every real patriot for what's good about this country should feel a profound and gnawing agony at every passing day these monsters aren't held to account and rendered incapable of further harm to humanity, whatever form that would take.
We need to make it loud and clear that if "the other team" in places of power doesn't use every single tool at their disposal to end this threat IMMEDIATELY, they are complicit fools and will be held accountable as accomplices to whatever untold horrors would await us, should we refuse to hold the line.
Wilco
in reply to MonkeMischief • • •Nomorereddit
in reply to MicroWave • • •CleoCommunist
in reply to MicroWave • • •Professorozone
in reply to MicroWave • • •DeICEAmerica
in reply to MicroWave • • •AquaTofana
in reply to MicroWave • • •switcheroo
in reply to MicroWave • • •That sounds rather... war-crime-y.
Should the orange cancer expect sternly written letters off displeasure (that are written at an adult comprehension level and not written in crayon, leading to him disregarding them ofc)?
Rhoeri
in reply to MicroWave • • •As I understand, not a single one of these boats were even remotely capable of making it to America to begin with. Not without refueling, which isn’t likely that we’re set up for it.
This was all a coordinated targeted mass murder right in front of our faces and they need to be tried and punished for every one.
itisileclerk
in reply to MicroWave • • •🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
in reply to MicroWave • • •Jesus fucking Christ, the bastards went full movie trope.
"What do we do with the survivors, sir?"
"There were no survivors. Do you understand?"