Jonah Goldberg: You can’t hide from war crimes by calling them ‘fake news’
Since September 2023, the U.S. military has escalated its operations in the Caribbean by targeting boats suspected of drug trafficking, raising significant legal and ethical questions about these actions. The military’s strikes, which have included the destruction of vessels and reportedly the targeting of survivors, are being conducted without a formal declaration of war or congressional authorization. The Trump administration’s justification for these military actions has hinged on designating certain drug traffickers as “terrorists,” a designation that lacks transparency and has not been publicly substantiated through a legal framework. This lack of clarity has prompted concerns from allies, notably leading the British government to cease sharing intelligence related to these operations due to apprehensions about their legality.
A recent report from the Washington Post has revealed shocking details about one of these operations, where a second strike was ordered against survivors clinging to wreckage after an initial attack on a suspected drug-trafficking boat. This directive allegedly came from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who reportedly instructed that “the order was to kill everybody.” Such actions, if confirmed, would constitute war crimes under both American and international law. While Hegseth has publicly dismissed the report as “fake news,” he has not denied the occurrence of a second strike. The situation has become increasingly complex as President Trump has publicly supported Hegseth while simultaneously acknowledging that such orders would contradict his policy. This contradiction raises critical questions about accountability and the legal ramifications of military orders issued during these operations, especially as Republican lawmakers express their concerns.
Critics argue that the overall strategy in the Caribbean appears to be a thinly veiled attempt at regime change in Venezuela, rather than a legitimate anti-drug effort. The administration’s failure to seek congressional approval for military action not only undermines constitutional norms but also sets a dangerous precedent for military engagement. As the debate continues, it is vital for the administration to provide evidence supporting its actions and to engage with Congress transparently. The implications of issuing illegal orders are profound, potentially damaging military morale and complicating the legal landscape for those involved. The discourse surrounding this issue underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards and the potential consequences of disregarding them in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKcOyhLrK9Q
Since September of this year, the United States military has been blowing up boats allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean.
Whether these attacks are legal is hotly debated. Congress hasn’t declared war or even authorized the use of force against “narco-terrorists” or against Venezuela, the apparent real target of a massive U.S. military build-up off its coast.
The Trump administration has simply unilaterally designated various — alleged — drug traffickers as “terrorists” or members of “terrorist organizations,” and then waged war upon them. The administration’s internal legal finding supporting all of this hasn’t been publicly released. But whatever their case in private is, it was sufficiently weak that the British government
announced
in early November it would no longer share intelligence with the U.S. relevant to the Caribbean operation over concerns about its lawfulness.
On Friday, the Washington Post dropped a
bombshell report
about the first of these operations back in September. During the strike, the Navy not only took out a suspected drug-trafficking boat — as had been reported previously — but when survivors were spotted clinging to the wreckage, the special operations commander overseeing the operation ordered a second strike on the survivors, in order to comply with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to kill everyone involved.
“Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation,” the Post reported. “‘The order was to kill everybody,’ one of them said.”
Whatever you think about the broader Caribbean operation, it is a simple fact that shooting survivors at sea is war crime, under American and international law. Of course,
as some suggest
, since this operation is not a legal war, maybe it’s not a war crime, just a crime-crime.
Later Friday, in a lengthy
social media post
, Hegseth attacked the Washington Post’s report as an instance of the “fake news … delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting.”
What Hegseth didn’t do was directly deny the report. Instead, he insisted that “we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’”
Declaring your intent was to kill everybody on the first try isn’t a legal excuse to finish off unarmed survivors.
Hegseth offered follow-up posts that were
boastful
or
childish
, but did not deny the charge.
With even Republican members of Congress expressing grave concerns, the official story changed from “fake news” to an actual denial.
Trump said
that Hegseth told the president that he did not give any such illegal order, “and I believe him, 100%,” adding that he “wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike.”
So it now appears the White House has confirmed there was a second strike on the survivors, and conceded that it would at least be against the president’s policy. Whether the White House will concede the strike was unlawful remains to be seen. Indeed, exactly what happened remains murky. It surely seems like someone gave an order for a second strike. And if it wasn’t Hegseth, whoever that person was could be looking at a court-martial — or given who the commander-in-chief is, a pardon.
But I don’t want to get ahead of the news.
Instead, I’ll make a few points.
First, a minor gripe: This administration and its defenders need to be more selective in their use of the term “fake news.” I have no problem calling a false story “fake news.” But if you know that a story isn’t false, calling it “fake news” just sets you up to look like even more of a liar or hypocrite down the road when you end up admitting the truth and defending actions you once pretended were slanderous.
More importantly, the whole Caribbean strategy is constitutionally and legally dubious. As a matter of foreign policy, it looks more and more like a pretext for some kind of
regime
change
gambit
in
Venezuela
. If the administration has evidence that justifies its actions, they should share it with Congress and ask for permission to wage war.
Even more important: illegal orders cannot be justified. When a half-dozen Democratic members of Congress released a video saying that the military shouldn’t follow “illegal orders,” the president and many of his defenders became hysterical. Trump lamented that America has become so “soft” that such “seditious behavior” isn’t punished by death anymore.
More sober critics of the Democrats complained that the video sowed confusion in the ranks and hurt morale. I’m actually sympathetic to that argument.
But you know what else sows confusion and hurts morale? Issuing illegal orders – or even appearing to do so.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is
@JonahDispatch
.
