Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

[RDKirk]

Pete Hegseth denies he gave orders to ‘kill everybody’ on alleged ‘narco-boat’​

Defense secretary called reports about his role in strike as ‘fake news’ intended to discredit US military

The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has declared recent reporting that he may have illegally ordered all people to be killed in a military strike in the Caribbean as “fake news” on Friday evening, adding that the series of strikes of people on boats had been “lawful under both US and international law”.

I didn't do it, but it was legal!

Adm Frank M “Mitch” Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, reportedly ordered a second strike to kill the two survivors to comply with Hegseth’s orders.

As I've said before, I would bet that the orders as vetted by Pentagon lawyers skirted actually saying "kill everybody."

If Bradley presumed it that way...and transmitted the orders "more clearly" that way, then Bradley will take the fall, as will some or all of the officers below him, most especially the senior operations officer on the scene. Given today's thorough LOAC training, it's likely to get down to the person who actually pulled the trigger. The death march is going to start with whoever directed the second pass....

 

[durangodawood]

Any over/under on when the USA will be officialy at war with Venezuela?

I'll throw in my hat and say "Christmas Eve".

Officially at war. Never.

Actually at war.... you could be right. I mean, what are these current attacks? Law enforcement? I dont think so

 

[durangodawood]

I have detected a conspicuous absence of Trump supporters here. I wonder what they make of this. Probably awaiting thinking points from a momentarily bewildered right wing media sphere.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have detected a conspicuous absence of Trump supporters here. I wonder what they make of this. Probably awaiting thinking points from a momentarily bewildered right wing media sphere.

I think many of them expanded their moral compass 27 pages ago and are comfy with the new normal.

 

[Nithavela]

I have detected a conspicuous absence of Trump supporters here. I wonder what they make of this. Probably awaiting thinking points from a momentarily bewildered right wing media sphere.

They still have to update from "the democrats will lead us to war" to "finally we are being led to war". That demands a full system reboot.

 

[Desk trauma]

They still have to update from "the democrats will lead us to war" to "finally we are being led to war". That demands a full system reboot.

Goldstein interfered with the banners!

 

[RDKirk]

Officially at war. Never.

Actually at war.... you could be right. I mean, what are these current attacks? Law enforcement? I dont think so

Closing off their airspace is as much an act of war as a naval blockade.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Peace on earth and mercy mild

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump ‘Wouldn’t Have Wanted’ Second Strike on Venezuela Boat ​

["Hegseth] said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision,” Trump said, adding when pressed yet again about the legality of the strikes: "I wouldn't have wanted that - a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine."

“Pete said he did not order the death of those men,” Trump said when asked again about a second strike on the boat, and avoided answering whether he would have been okay with a second strike if Hegseth had ordered one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's crystal clear the combat decision was made by Bradley; Pete was busy learning how to drive a bus.

 

[wing2000]

Trump ‘Wouldn’t Have Wanted’ Second Strike on Venezuela Boat​

["Hegseth] said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision,” Trump said, adding when pressed yet again about the legality of the strikes: "I wouldn't have wanted that - a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine."

“Pete said he did not order the death of those men,” Trump said when asked again about a second strike on the boat, and avoided answering whether he would have been okay with a second strike if Hegseth had ordered one.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, acknowledged Monday that Hegseth had authorized Bradley to conduct the strikes on Sept. 2. Bradley, she added, “worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed.”

Her scripted remarks at a news briefing elicited a furious backlash within the Defense Department, where officials described feeling angry at the uncertainty over whether Hegseth would take responsibility for his alleged role in the operation — or leave the military and civilian staff under him to face the consequences.

“This is ‘protect Pete’ bulls---,” one military official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations, told The Post.

Leavitt’s statement “left it up to interpretation” who was responsible for the second strike that killed the two survivors, a separate military official said, imploring the White House to provide clarity on the issue.

One official said of Leavitt’s statement, “It’s throwing us, the service members, under the bus.” Another person said some of Hegseth’s top civilian staff appeared deeply alarmed about the revelations and were contemplating whether to leave the administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/12/01/hegseth-caine-boat-strikes-caribbean/

 

[wing2000]

Retired Lt. General Mark Hertling:

"Leaders are shaped by their experiences—and some experiences harden your reverence for standards, while others distort it.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth frequently cites two moments from his Iraq experience as forming his worldview on military justice and rules of engagement. The first is a 2005 rules-of-engagement briefing by a JAG officer that he attended and which he has repeatedly described as excessively restrictive—and, in his view, dangerous. The second is the May 2006 “Tharthar Island” incident in which several detainees were killed after being captured. Three soldiers of Hegseth’s former unit were later convicted, and the brigade commander received a formal reprimand for toxic leadership and command-climate failures.

All these events sparked deep professional debates throughout the Army at the time. For commanders across Iraq and those preparing to go to combat, the cases underscored that a leader, even just through the climate of their command, communicates to their unit the boundaries of lawful actions—and that accountability is essential. In the case of Hegseth’s old unit, others viewed the investigations as unfair or overly legalistic. Secretary Hegseth’s public statements over the past decade reflect a belief that military legal oversight constrains warfighters, that investigations burden troops, and that commanders should be freer—rather than more disciplined—in the use of force."

Pete Hegseth, Moral Failure, and the Erosion of Military Legitimacy

Congress needs to find out if any laws were broken and who is responsible.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Stopped_lurking]

This must do wonders for the moral among admirals and generals.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I didn't do it, but it was legal!

And if I had done it, they would have deserved it.

The two next stages:
"Why do you love criminals?"
"Quiet, piggy".

 

[Servus]

Feom siding with Hamas terrorists to siding with cartels and a drug lord strongman.

 

[Perpetual Student]

This screenshot is gold.

 

[Servus]

This screenshot is gold.

Is it supposed to be that if you call it in the form of sarcasm, then no one else can call it for what it is?

"Just you wait, they'll call those bovines cows"

"Cows were grazing in the field"

"Ha ha called it!"

 

[Perpetual Student]

Is it supposed to be that if you call it in the form of sarcasm, then no one else can call it for what it is?

"Just you wait, they'll call those bovines cows"

"Cows were grazing in the field"

"Ha ha called it!"

I see "the leftists" call for the application of the rule of law.
This has been even pointed out previously.
But let me ask you directly: are you in favour of applying and protecting the rule of law, without ifs or buts and without exceptions?
Do you equate the advocatiing for the rule of law is loving criminals?

 

[Servus]

I see "the leftists" call for the application of the rule of law.
This has been even pointed out previously.
But let me ask you directly: are you in favour of applying and protecting the rule of law, without ifs or buts and without exceptions?
Do you equate the advocatiing for the rule of law is loving criminals?

Sounds like justification for those supporting illegal immigration, terrorists, cartels and drug lords. Making such support out to be honorable.

Probably there's also been calls for showing empathy towards cartels, drug lords, and drug smugglers as well.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I see people supporting illegal immigration, terrorists, and cartels and drug lords. So I pointed that out.

1) you didn't answer any of my questions. So let me repeat:
are you in favour of applying and protecting the rule of law, without ifs or buts and without exceptions?
Do you equate the advocating for the rule of law is loving criminals?
2) I challenge you to show me any post in support of illegal immigration, terrorists or drug cartels.