Congress Is Finally Going To Look Into Trump’s Boat Strike Killing Spree
from the department-of-murder dept
It was never enough to simply expel migrants as quickly as possible for the Trump administration. A massive conglomerate of federal officers was incapable of hitting Trump advisor Stephen Miller’s 3,000 arrests per day quota, no matter how many rights it violated. Any pretense of only going after migrants with criminal records was discarded during Trump’s previous administration, even though every administration spokesperson is guaranteed to repeat the lie in defense of every act of brutality.
For a few months now, the administration has been killing people in international waters. The supposed justification is that the people killed are transporting drugs destined for the United States. Maybe some of those killed were engaged in drug trafficking, but prior to Trump’s second term, the accepted approach was to intercept these boats and arrest their occupants.
That’s apparently unacceptable to Trump and the ex-Fox News commentator he elevated to the top position in the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth. Our country is now engaged in extrajudicial killings (more accurately: murders) in international waters under the pretense that the trafficking of drugs is the equivalent of engaging in actual war against the United States.
The zero due process executions in open waters would be distressing enough. But it’s even worse than that. The US military — under the direction of Hegseth and Trump — is making sure no one survives the initial attack.
The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.
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.
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.
The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
This is America. We kill what we have no desire to save. Land of the Free (but for MAGA faithful only) and home of the people so brave they’re willing to circle back around to murder people clinging to life after an initial military strike.
If not war crimes, why war-crime shaped, one might ask. No one in the administration cares. It’s what the regime wants to do. Nothing else matters other than it getting done.
The consolation prize in the middle of this murderous race towards authoritarianism is this: some people — even some Republicans — are extremely uncomfortable with this operation, which definitely sports a war crime silhouette.
Republican-led committees in the Senate and the House say they will amplify their scrutiny of the Pentagon after a Washington Post report revealing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken order to kill all crew members aboard a vessel suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea several weeks ago.
[…]
Late Friday, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed (Rhode Island), the committee’s top Democrat, issued a statement saying that the committee “is aware of recent news reports — and the Department of Defense’s initial response — regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels.” The committee, they said, “has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”
These two lawmakers have since been joined by Rep. Mike Rogers (a Republican) and Rep. Adam Smith (Democratic Party), who have stated they’re interested in a “full accounting” of Trump’s international waters-based boat strike program. That brings the House in alignment with the Senate, ensuring both branches of Congress involved in US military oversight are involved.
While this is a positive development (given the political affiliation of everyone involved), we won’t know what this actually means until this investigation is well underway. On one hand, this could just be Republicans playing nice with Democratic party members in hopes of finding some way to justify these strikes after the fact.
On the other hand, even MAGA Republicans are probably upset they’ve been left out of the loop on this. The administration has steadfastly refused to allow congressional reps to directly interact with the OLC lawyers who couldn’t be bothered to reverse engineer a justification for extrajudicial killings until well after several killings had already taken place. Whether or not these Republicans agree with Trump, it’s becoming clear they’d like to be considered part of the process, rather than simply expected to cheer from the sidelines.
Blowing up boats the administration claims (after the fact) were filled with drug traffickers is one thing. (And what a fucking thing it is.) Sending in another strike to ensure no one survives the attacks is quite another. Never mind the moral obligations. The United States has legal obligations to survivors of military strikes, especially when it’s clear (as it is here in the case of people clinging to wreckage) they pose no danger to anyone.
A group of former military attorneys who have scrutinized the Trump administration’s military activities in Latin America released an assessment Saturday outlining relevant international and domestic laws, and said that regardless of whether the U.S. is in an armed conflict, conducting law enforcement or other military operations, the targeting of defenseless people is prohibited.
Under the circumstances The Post reported, “not only does international law prohibit targeting these survivors, but it also requires the attacking force to protect, rescue, and, if applicable, treat them as prisoners of war,” the group said in a statement circulated to news media. “Violations of these obligations are war crimes, murder, or both. There are no other options.”
While this may seem not all that different from the drone/military strikes authorized by the Obama administration — some of which involved several passes to ensure anyone merely wounded would be completely dead — it definitely isn’t the same thing. The extrajudicial killings authorized by Obama involved people in areas where the US was already engaged in military conflicts. The boat strikes, on the other hand, involve people from a country we’re not occupying or invading (Venezuela) and people who the administration openly admits are doing nothing more than moving drugs from one place to another.
Claiming these drugs are headed to the US is an allegation without basis in fact. And the killing of people suspected of nothing more than acts that could only be prosecuted if the traffickers and their drugs attempted to cross the US border while they’re still in international waters hundreds of miles away from the United States is nothing more than straight up murdering people just because you think you can get away with it. So far, the administration has. Maybe what’s happening now will bring this to a halt. But until it does, the Trump administration will continue to ensure every American has blood on their hands, whether they voted for him or not.
Filed Under: boat strikes, defense department, doj, extrajudicial killings, jack reed, pete hegseth, roger wicker, trump administration, venezuela, war on drugs


Comments on “Congress Is Finally Going To Look Into Trump’s Boat Strike Killing Spree”
I'm pretty sure Pete already admitted he gave the order.
The “double tap” strike in question occured on the 2nd of September. 28 days later, Pete Hegseth addressed general and flag officers at Quantico with a speech where, among other things, he said the following (emphasis mine):
If he were a defendant in a criminal trial over these killings (inshallah), the prosecution would probably refer to the video of him saying those things as “Exhibit A”.
Re:
Oh, Hegseth and everybody else down the chain of command to the guy who pulled the trigger is really hoping Ol’ Pudding Brains keeps it together long enough to pardon them.
Or that the next Democrat in office shares Obama’s belief that the appropriate response to war crimes by the previous administration is to say “we tortured some folks” and no second thing.
Hey, all it took was finding out that Hegseth issued the literal textbook definition of an illegal order.
Well, that and Trump’s cratering poll numbers. Probably mostly that.
Stop calling it a war crime. It’s not a war crime. To commit a war crime you must be at war, or at very least in some form of armed conflict.
This is not that.
In fact, by its perpetrators own admission (and legal necessity) it is not an armed conflict because the bad people in the boats are not capable of shooting back. The reality is so awful that it doesn’t even make a funny joke: Legally the Department of Defense is claiming that the US is just shooting its weapons into the water apropos nothing and if some poor unfortunate souls happen to be in the way of said missiles that is unfortunate for them but not the problem of the United States.
Re:
Calling it “first-degree murder” doesn’t really get across the heinous nature of that “double tap” strike, so “war crime” will have to do until you can find a more apt term.
Re: Re:
State sponsored terrorism?
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that probably fits best.
Re: Re:
Designated Relentless Unwarranted Nautical Killings.
Or DRUNK.
Re:
Yes, the article makes that point at least three times (“If not war crimes, why war-crime shaped”, “definitely sports a war crime silhouette”, “Violations of these obligations are war crimes, murder, or both” in the quoted-quoted section), so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.
Re: Re:
He’s just complaining that he didn’t understood anything of this article since he didn’t read it.
He’d also totally forgotten that since nearly a year, the current administration in still at war with basically anything.
Re: Re:
My point is that it’s not “war crime shaped”. It does not sport a “war crime silhouette”. It’s “serial killer” shaped that sports a “premeditated murder” silhouette.
Re: Re: Re:
Except yes it absolutely fucking does. Were we officially at war with Venezuela, it wouldn’t even be a question and you wouldn’t be mucking about with needless semantics. So yeah, it’s absolutely war crime shaped.
Call it by its name...
The second strike was the murder of witnesses.
Trump/Hegseth will go above and beyond to make sure there is never a survivor who can testify to Congress or at The Hague.
Oh, they already have a fall guy in mind. Piss-Drunk Pete Kegstand is throwing Admiral Mitch Bradley under the bus:
Translation: He’s going to claim Bradley acted on his own with the “double tap,” and weasel out of responsibility.
Military leaders, take heed:
Make no mistake, if Bradley did execute illegal orders, he needs to face the music. But there is no just world in which Bradley faces consequences and the Fox News dunk-tank clown who gave him the orders does not.
Re: Not "they"
Bradley has been nominated as his fall guy by Hegseth. However, Trump has stated that Hegseth has told him he gave no order to kill survivors, and asked by reporters whether it would be a crime if he did, he said that he didn’t and so this question was not relevant.
That translates into “if Hegseth does not manage to sweep the records about his involvement under the rug, he is toast”. Because then he will be depicted as having lied to Trump. Of course there is no way that Trump would not have known and, given his character, approved of committing war crimes here. But his take here clearly is “I won’t assume a bit of blame, weasel out of it on your own or else”.
Having their subordinants’ back for those reptiles means having a place to stick a dagger in when expedient.
How much?
A Flotilla of Ships, 5000 marines?, Planes, Fuel, Missiles?
How much per day?
Lets make this a round number and Low ball it.
$1,000,000? Per day?
Suggest you look up the basic military pay. They Updates it a few years back.
So lets TRIPLE that number a few times.
$10,000,000.
THEn this is based on TRUMP thinking about the economy and SAVING MONEY to make himself look goood. LMAO>>>
Lets triple it a few more times.
$60,000,000? Am I getting closer?
Re:
On April 1, Defense Department officials said the militarization at the US-Mexico border had cost roughly $376 million since Trump returned to the White House on January 20, or about $5.3 million per day.
https://www.businessinsider.com/military-assets-donald-trump-immigration-us-mexico-southern-border-2025-3#costly-crackdown-on-immigration-1
DARN I MISSED IT.
Hypocrite!
Doubling down on killing Venezuelans while pardoning others for the same thing is such Trump thing.
From CNN –
“President Donald Trump has formally pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, according to his attorney Renato Stabile and a White House official.
Trump had announced his intention of granting a “full and complete pardon” to Hernández last week in a move that erases a major US drug-trafficking conviction for a onetime US ally.
President of Honduras from 2014 until 2022, Hernández was convicted and sentenced last year to 45 years in prison and given an $8 million fine by a US judge for drug trafficking offenses.”
Fixed it for you.
They might try to retroactively say we were at war with Venezuela to justify it all.
Really?
Might it not be more realistic to say that Congress will put on a show of examining the repeated crimes before claiming either ‘nothing to see here, move on’ or “nothing we can do’.
Congressional investigation
Oh, thank God! Congress is on it! We’re saved!
I wonder when Trump will try to pull off a 9/11.
Re:
Even if I were to believe that the US government orchestrated the September 11 terror attacks (and I don’t): No one in the Trump administration—including Trump himself—is competent enough to pull that off.
Has Trump killed more than the number of people the 9/11 hijackers killed? It almost seems Trump is not that different from Mohamed Atta.
Re:
Mohamed Atta did not ask for a Nobel Peace Prize and was waiting for the afterlife to fondle 72 virgins.
Two things seem pretty clear
The stuff about Trump in the Epstein Files must be really bad to justify a distraction on this scale.
The Administration hopes to compromise enough senior military officers to gain military support when it refuses to leave power in 2029. If the officers are facing long prison terms under a successor government, that’s a powerful argument for accepting claims about a “state of emergency.”
GOP Congress voted for this
By giving Trump carte-blanche and not pushing back on his blatant abuses of power and usurpation of budgeting authority they enabled this continuous rampage. Because they didn’t want to have actual approval of the abhorrent on their record.
The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.
Really. With 11 people on board.
Thing is, you could watch for them to approach the U.S. coast for an illegal landing attempt, and then strike. Or arrest them. Oh right, we need to televise something stat, without any pesky evidence that they did something and of what we did.