|
 |
Welcome to Popular Information, a newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism.
 |
Since September 2, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used drones to kill more than 80 people traveling by boat in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The government claims strikes targeted “terrorists” trafficking drugs into the United States.
According to a New York Times report, the military does not know the names of all the people it has killed. Instead, the military carries out a strike on a boat if it “knows that someone on the boats has a connection to a drug cartel, and it has some level of confidence that drugs are on the vessels.” No evidence has been presented to the public and Colombia’s government says that at least one of the strikes killed an innocent fisherman.
Even if every person killed by the drone strikes was in fact a drug trafficker, it is unclear what authority the DOD has to kill them. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that cartels are trafficking drugs to finance a “non-international armed conflict” against the U.S., giving the executive branch the authority under Article II of the Constitution to kill the drug traffickers without Congress signing off on a declaration of war. Lawmakers and legal experts have raised doubts that smuggling drugs into the U.S. constitutes initiating an “armed conflict.”
Recently, new information has surfaced with the strongest evidence yet that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth committed a war crime in ordering at least one of the strikes.
Last week, the Washington Post reported that Hegseth gave a verbal order to leave no survivors in the first strike of the DOD’s campaign against drug smuggling boats, which took place in the Caribbean on September 2. Several minutes after striking the boat for the first time, the Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to kill two men hanging on to the burning remains of the boat in order to comply with Hegseth’s order, according to the Post.
That narrative describes a likely violation of the Geneva Conventions, which states, “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” with specific protections against “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds.”
Two people, whose exact identities and potential roles in drug trafficking are unknown, clinging to wreckage in the middle of the ocean would certainly be ‘hors de combat’ — individuals who cannot fight back — which would make killing them a war crime. This would also be a violation of the 1996 War Crimes Act, which incorporates the Geneva Conventions into U.S. law.
Both Democrats and Republicans have raised serious concerns about Hegseth’s order in the wake of the Washington Post report. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said on CBS, “This rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true.” Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said, “Obviously if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act.” The House and Senate armed services committees have announced that they are looking into the order.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the second strike during the September 2 operation, saying everything was within the military’s legal authority. Leavitt provided no details to substantiate this claim.
That Hegseth would give such an order that could potentially constitute a war crime should come as no surprise. Hegseth has a long history of expressing contempt for the Geneva Conventions and the legal rules of engagement.
Hegseth suggested abiding by international law was like “fighting with one hand behind our back”
In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, Hegseth questioned whether the U.S. military should abide by the Geneva Conventions. Hegseth argued that following the Geneva Conventions was like “fighting with one hand behind our back.”
Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: If you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.
Makes me wonder, in 2024—if you want to win—how can anyone write universal rules about killing other people in open conflict? Especially against enemies who fight like savages, disregarding human life in every single instance. Maybe, instead, we are just fighting with one hand behind our back—and the enemy knows it.
Hegseth went on to suggest that the U.S. military should just follow “our own rules” and disregard “international tribunals:”
If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?! Who cares what other countries think. The question we have to ask ourselves is, if we are forced to fight, are we going to fight to win? Or will we fight to make leftists feel good—which means not wining [sic] and fighting forever.
During confirmation hearing, Hegseth avoided questions about following Geneva Conventions
During Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, Senator Angus King (I-ME) asked Hegseth about whether he believed in abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Hegseth avoided directly answering.
Senator, as I’ve… stated multiple times, the Geneva Conventions are what we base ours… What an America first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. America first understands we send Americans for a clear mission and a clear objective, we equip them properly for that objective—and we give them everything they need and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively to defeat America’s enemies which is why we sit quietly and peacefully in this conference room.
“We follow rules, but we don’t need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth also told Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) during his confirmation hearing that he had “thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the frontlines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren’t the ones getting in the way,” ABC News reported.
Hegseth told military leaders to set aside “stupid rules of engagement”
In a September speech, Hegseth told a group of senior military leaders to ignore “stupid rules of engagement,” which he called “overbearing.” Rules of engagement are