The September 2 2025 killing by drone strike of 2 survivors, clinging to debris after their boat was destroyed by a US military strike in the Caribbean, has caused distress, outrage and a massive response in the media.
Hegseth gives chilling reply amid report of ‘kill them all’ order during first Caribbean boat strike: ‘Just begun to…’
Story by Shuvrajit Das Biswas
• 8h
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reportedly issued an order to ‘kill everyone’ during the first US boat strike in the Caribbean.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth issued a chilling one-liner after a Washington Post report claimed he’d given a directive for everyone to be killed during the first Caribbean boat strike.
Hegseth, on X, said “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”
And Jack Goldsmith has written an analysis of the legal position.
I am a Harvard Law School professor, a non-resident senior fellow @AEI, and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel. I teach and write about, among other things, the presidency. My work can be found at jackgoldsmith.org.
He wrote a piece on Substack today, here is an extract:
One can imagine stretching Article II of the Constitution to authorize the U.S. drug boat campaign. The wildly overbroad Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) precedents, as I have written before, provide “no meaningful legal check on the president.” And there are dim historical precedents one could cite. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. noted in The Imperial Presidency that in the 19th century presidents unilaterally engaged in “[m]ilitary action against Indians—stateless and lawless by American definition—pirates, slave traders, smugglers, cattle rustlers, frontier ruffians [and] foreign brigands.”
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 practice of 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.”
Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.
This is an old principle of the laws of war. The Hague Regulations of 1907 state that “it is especially forbidden . . . [t]o declare that no quarter will be given.” The 1863 Lieber Code—the famous U.S. government rules governing military conduct during the Civil War—provides: “Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed.” And the currently governing DOD Manual in Section 5.9 states clearly that persons “placed hors de combat may not be made the object of attack.” The Manual defines “hors de combat” to include “persons . . . otherwise incapacitated by . . . shipwreck.”
In short, if the Post’s facts are correct, it appears that Special Operations Forces committed murder when the “two men were blown apart in the water,” as the Post put it.
…………….
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive,according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.
The Post then reports that after then-Joint Special Operations Command chief U.S. Navy Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley became aware of the survivors, he “ordered the second strike to fulfill Hegseth’s directive that everyone must be killed.” This makes it seem like Hegseth—even if his initial “order” was (as it seems) a command to take no quarter—might not have been in the loop between the first and second strikes.
I do not believe, based on the facts in the Post story, that Bradley could have relied on Hegseth’s order—even if Hegseth formally ordered the second strike. The prohibition on targeting a disabled combatant is so clear that Bradley had a duty, in the words of 18.22.4 of the Manual, “to refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law of war.”
According to the Post, Bradley at some point argued that “the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.” That is wrong. The theoretical possibility of calling other traffickers for help is not the test. The incapacitated survivors simply may not be targeted unless, as Section 5.9 of the Manual says, they affirmatively committed a “hostile act” or “attempt[ed] to escape.” If the Post’s facts are in the vicinity of the truth, that could not have happened. (The Intercept, which reported the kernel of this event in September, said that the survivors were “killed shortly after in a follow-up attack.”)
I wrote a few weeks ago about the possibility of an OLC golden shield as a defense to illegal conduct in connection with the boat strikes. OLC is forbidden to “advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law” and is exercising power delegated from an Attorney General unflinchingly beholden to the President. But I do not believe that even the Bondi OLC could legally justify the events the Post reported. In an opinion last summer upholding the general legality of the drug boat campaign, OLC apparently stated (or at least assumed) that the law of armed conflict governed the strikes. In this light, it is hard to see how OLC could bless these strikes, much less do so ex post. Which leaves the pardon power as the option that can, and no doubt will, eventually immunize what happened.
Hegseth has emphasized that he wants to restore the “warrior ethos” in the U.S. military. In the hours after the story, he signaled generic support for the boat strike campaign and chest-thumped that “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”
Yet the warrior ethos has always demanded honorable conduct in warfare. The Navy Seals, for example, describe themselves as “a special breed of warrior” but the Seal Ethos thrice emphasizes the importance of honor, including “on . . . the battlefield.” And surely the warrior ethos, whatever else it means, doesn’t require killing helpless men clinging to the burning wreckage of a blown-up boat. The DOD Manual is clear because the law here is clear: “Persons who have been incapacitated by . . . shipwreck are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack.”
Dec 1st, 2025
White House, protecting Pete Hegseth, now appear to throw Admiral Bradley ‘under the bus’ for having ordered the ‘double tap’ killing of survivors clinging to previously struck boat.
Who is Admiral Bradley?
Adm. Frank M. Bradley is a U.S. Navy SEAL Officer. Originally from Eldorado, Texas, ADM Bradley is a 1991 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, where he studied physics and was a varsity gymnast. He began his career as a SEAL after completing Basic Underwater Demolition school (BUDs/SEAL) Class 179 in 1992.
He has commanded at all levels of special operations, including Joint Special Operations Command, Special Operations Command Central, and Naval Special Warfare Development Group. He has multiple tours in command of joint task forces and was among the first to deploy into Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Additionally, he has served with SEAL Team FOUR, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team TWO, and the Italian Incursori (Italian SEALs) as an international exchange officer.
Adm. Bradley earned a Masters in Physics from Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, where he received a provisional patent for his research in 2006.
His staff duty has included service as the Assistant Commander, Joint Special Operations Command as well as the J-3 Technical Operations Division Chief and the Deputy J-3; the Vice Deputy Director for Global Operations for the Joint Staff J-3; the Executive Officer for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.; and the Deputy Director for CT Strategy for the Joint Staff J-5.
Intelligence on U.S. Military’s Boat Strikes Is Limited
What Happened: A New York Times investigation found the U.S. has killed over 80 people in Trump’s Caribbean/Pacific boat-strike campaign despite having little idea who was being targeted. The Pentagon concedes it only has vague confidence the boats carried drugs, meaning many victims may have been fishermen, couriers, or civilians.
Why It Matters: The U.S. is carrying out lethal operations with almost no intelligence, normalizing extrajudicial killing, and risking massive blowback. Lawmakers warn the strikes mirror discredited “signature strikes,” erasing oversight and creating long-term security risks.
Trump says the U.S. will ‘very soon’ take action on land to stop alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers
What Happened: Trump said the U.S. could “very soon” begin land strikes in Venezuela, escalating a months-long military campaign that has already killed at least 83 people in maritime operations. His comments come as he massed major naval assets in the Caribbean, designates a pro-Maduro faction as a foreign terrorist organization, and weighs a broader military intervention.
Why It Matters: Threatening ground operations pushes the U.S. to the brink of an unauthorized war driven by politicized claims about drug trafficking that experts say have little basis. Trump is using a narcotics pretext to justify regime-change and an oil grab, raising the risk of regional conflict and catastrophic miscalculation.
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) — Former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for his role in helping drug traffickers move hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States, was released from prison following a pardon from President Donald Trump, his wife announced Tuesday.
How did this happen? Well, thanks to Ed Martin, the ‘pardon’ lust producer, also was the lawyer for Jan 6th insurrectionists, and Roger Stone’s letter:
Roger Stone claims Trump announced pardon for Juan Orlando Hernández “three hours after” he sent Trump a letter from the former Honduran president
Ana García de Hernández to Stone: “We also want to express our helpful gratitude for the support that you had given … to my husband and the father of my daughters. Since you start speaking about this case, you made such a huge difference.”
The latest strike came the same day Navy Adm. Frank Bradley was in Congress to brief lawmakers on the U.S. military’s Sept. 2 strike against an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean, where 11 people were killed.
During the briefings, which were held in both chambers, Bradley, the commander of Joint Special Operations Command, denied reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order to “kill everybody” aboard before the Sept. 2 operation.
The briefing from Bradley came as lawmakers in both parties were asking the Trump administration for more information regarding the Sept. 2 mission, where the U.S. military conducted four strikes, two to kill those on board and two others to sink the vessel.
Since early September, the U.S. military has conducted more than 20 strikes against purported drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing at least 87 people, according to the Trump administration.
Thursday’s strike in the eastern Pacific represents the first U.S. strike against an alleged drug-smuggling vessel since mid-November, when the U.S. military blew up a purported drug-smuggling boat and killed three “narco-terrorists.”
Summary of Trump pardons (to Dec 10, 2025) for criminals who can afford to buy a pardon:
Trump pardons major drug traffickers despite his anti-drug rhetoric
What Happened: Trump has granted clemency to more than 100 people convicted of drug crimes, including Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, gang leader Larry Hoover, Baltimore drug boss Garnett Gilbert Smith, and Honduran ex-president Juan Orlando Hernández, tied to 400 tons of cocaine entering the U.S. The pardons come even as Trump orders lethal strikes on suspected boats under the guise of countering drugs.
Why It Matters: Trump is freeing some of the world’s most notorious traffickers, exposing clemency as a tool of loyalty and influence rather than public safety. The contradiction undercuts his drug-war theatrics and shows how violent offenders walk free while militarized operations serve political showmanship.
How the rich and powerful jockey for pardons from Trump
What Happened: Trump has issued nearly 1,600 pardons this year, an unprecedented wave that bypasses the Justice Department and turns clemency into a political weapon. Wealthy allies, lobbyists, and insiders now compete for influence as Trump overrides prosecutors and hands out pardons to figures like a Honduran ex-president convicted of drug trafficking, Rep. Henry Cuellar, and even an executive charged by his own DOJ.
Why It Matters: Trump has turned clemency into a loyalty marketplace, rewarding allies while clearing corruption cases and delegitimizing Biden-era prosecutions. By collapsing the formal pardon system, he’s turned justice into a patronage network where money, access, and allegiance decide who walks free.
Retired, living in the Scottish Borders after living most of my life in cities in England. I can now indulge my interest in all aspects of living close to nature in a wild landscape. I live on what was once the Iapetus Ocean which took millions of years to travel from the Southern Hemisphere to here in the Northern Hemisphere. That set me thinking and questioning and seeking answers.
In 1998 I co-wrote Millennium Countdown (US)/ A Business Guide to the Year 2000 (UK) see https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780749427917
borderslynn 