Dem
47
GOP
53
We concede, as we have in the past, that we're not 100% sure where the line is between legitimate operations against unfriendlies and/or criminals, and, well, war crimes. Our gut feel tells us that firing on apparently unarmed boats, without giving them a chance to surrender, based on the unproven claim that they were running drugs, is probably on the wrong side of the line.
Even more probably on the wrong side of the line is an incident that happened in September, but was only reported this weekend, first by The Washington Post. According to the Post's sources, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told Adm. Frank Bradley to "kill everybody" during the attack. The first assault left two people alive, and so Bradley did what he was told to do, and ordered a second volley, in which those two survivors were killed. This is not substantively different than giving no quarter to prisoners of war who have tried to surrender. And killing—in effect, executing—people who have surrendered is definitely a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Since the news broke, Hegseth and the White House have done so much dancing around the facts of the story that they might as well launch a revival of Soul Train. Initially, Hegseth sent out a laudatory tweet complimenting the admiral for his good work. Then, when questioned by reporters, the Secretary called the Post story fake news, while very pointedly neglecting to comment on the "kill everybody" order. Yesterday, both the White House and Hegseth tried to throw Bradley under the bus—well, he's an admiral, so under the boat—and to suggest that this was mostly/entirely Bradley's call.
You would presume that, with something as significant and as problematic as this, the President would be looped in on the decision. However, when Donald Trump was asked about it, he was first confused and said he didn't know about the attack. Then he said that while the first assault was OK, he did not agree with the second assault. Assuming that is true, and we tend to think it is, this would seem to be another example of Hegseth behaving as a law unto himself. Remember, his order to all the high-ranking brass to report for that bizarro pep talk/chest thumping was also on his own authority, and also left Trump confused.
And as to the war crimes issue, there's more than just our gut feel here. Leon Panetta was Secretary of Defense, and so he surely oughta know. He said yesterday that "I don't think there's any question that that's a war crime, if it happened in that way." Ryan Goodman, who once served as General Counsel in the Department of Defense, and who also oughta know, agrees. In an interview yesterday, he observed that the Pentagon's Law of War Manual has examples of illegal orders that servicemembers should refuse, and one example is... attacking shipwreck survivors. Perhaps it begins to make sense that Hegseth is going after the six Democrats in the "You can refuse illegal orders" video with such fury.
And on that point, guess who has become the go-to interview for military affairs, particularly abuses of military authority? Yep, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ). For example, he did a press briefing yesterday where he was peppered with questions about Hegseth and about the attack. And, among other things, Kelly commented:
[H]e runs around on a stage like he's a 12-year-old playing army. And it is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. I cannot imagine what our allies think looking at that guy in this job — one of the most important jobs in our country in my view. After the president of the United States, it is the next most important job. He is in the national command authority for nuclear weapons.
Pete Hegseth, meet the Streisand Effect.
The Secretary might well have bit off more than he can chew this time, as he is being lambasted from both sides of the aisle in Congress, with both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees announcing they will launch investigations. We may well be getting to the point that Hegseth becomes a liability for this administration. And everyone knows what happens once Donald Trump decides you're more trouble than you're worth (Hint: He has someone else fire you, because he's too chicken to do it himself, as in TACO). (Z)