White House confirms second boat strike on Sept. 2, but says Hegseth didn't order it

Key Concepts

• Kinetic Strikes: Military actions involving the use of force, typically with weapons.
• Law of War Manual (DoD): The Department of Defense's official guidance on the legal principles governing the conduct of warfare.
• Shipwrecked Persons: Individuals who are in distress at sea as a result of the loss or abandonment of their vessel, and are therefore protected under international law.
• Geneva Conventions: A series of treaties that establish the standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war.
• Grave Breach of the Geneva Conventions: Serious violations of the Geneva Conventions, which can constitute war crimes.
• Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): The body of federal law that governs the U.S. armed forces.
• International Criminal Court (ICC): An intergovernmental organization and international tribunal founded to investigate, prosecute, and help deter the commission of the gravest crimes of concern to the international community, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

Alleged War Crimes and White House Response

The White House has confirmed two strikes on an alleged drug boat. However, they are denying reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegsth issued an order to kill everyone on board. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona is calling for a formal investigation and for Hegsth to answer questions under oath, emphasizing the need to understand what happened.

White House Clarifications and Denials

• Confirmation of Second Strike: The administration now concedes that a second strike occurred on September 2nd on a suspected Venezuelan drug boat.
• Denial of "Kill Everyone" Order: The White House asserts that Defense Secretary Pete Hegsth did not issue an order to kill everyone on board, as reported by the Washington Post.
• Denial of Direct Order for Second Strike: They also state that Hegsth did not directly order the second strike.
• First Strike Casualties: Public reporting indicates the first strike killed nine out of eleven people on board, with two individuals left clinging to debris in the water.
• Justification for Second Strike: The White House claims the second strike was authorized by Navy Admiral Frank Bradley to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat eliminated. Secretary Hegsth has publicly supported Admiral Bradley's actions, stating he acted within his authority and the law.

Legal Implications of the Second Strike

According to the DoD's own Law of War Manual, striking shipwrecked individuals is prohibited because they are defenseless and do not pose a threat. This legal principle is central to the controversy surrounding the second strike.

Legal Analysis of the Strikes

William Burke, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, provides a legal perspective on the incident, outlining two main legal questions:

1. Lawfulness of Strikes on Drug Boats

• Administration's Justification: The administration has attempted to justify these strikes by declaring a state of war with drug cartels.
• Legal Argument Against: Professor Burke argues that this justification is legally unsound.
  • Constitutional and International Law: Under both U.S. constitutional law and international law (including the Geneva Conventions), the U.S. is not at war with drug cartels.
  • Lack of Congressional Authorization: Congress has not authorized the use of force against these groups.
  • Nature of Cartels: Cartels are classified as criminal organizations, not armed groups engaged in combat with the United States.
• Conclusion: There is no legal basis for declaring war on drug cartels in this context.

2. War Crime Allegations Regarding Survivors

• Deliberate Killing of Survivors: The reports of two survivors being deliberately killed in the water after the first attack constitute a war crime.
• Protection of Shipwrecked Persons: International law unequivocally protects shipwrecked individuals.
• Prohibition on "No Survivors" Orders: There is an absolute prohibition on giving orders to leave no survivors, which is considered a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

Accountability and Responsibility

Professor Burke explains the chain of responsibility in cases of alleged war crimes:

• Passing the Buck: The White House's clarification that Hegsth did not order the second strike is seen as an attempt to shift blame to Admiral Bradley.
• Hierarchical Responsibility: Responsibility for unlawful orders extends from the soldiers who carried them out to the admiral who issued them, and ultimately to the Secretary of Defense.
• Potential Consequences:
  • Court Martial: Individuals who conducted manifestly unlawful orders could face court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  • International Criminal Court: If not held accountable in the U.S., individuals could theoretically be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
• Severity of the Crime: The severity of these alleged war crimes is described as "extraordinarily serious."

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The core of the issue revolves around the legality of striking shipwrecked individuals and the potential for war crimes. While the White House confirms two strikes on a drug boat and that Secretary Hegsth authorized kinetic strikes, they deny he ordered the killing of all individuals on board or directly ordered the second strike. Legal experts argue that striking shipwrecked persons is illegal under international law and constitutes a war crime. The administration's attempt to justify strikes against drug cartels as an act of war is also legally contested. The situation raises serious questions about accountability, with responsibility potentially extending to the highest levels of the Department of Defense. Democrats are demanding a full investigation and testimony under oath from Secretary Hegsth.