"Kill them all": Hegseth ordered strike on survivors of US attack

[CodeZenith]

US Defense Secretary ordered "kill them all" during counter-drug operation off Trinidad coast.

A bombshell investigation by the Washington Post has revealed that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally authorized a maritime strike off the coast of Trinidad, which resulted in orders to kill any remaining survivors from the initial attack. The operation was carried out on September 2 and targeted a small vessel suspected of transporting narcotics.

According to officials with direct knowledge of the mission, the first missile strike destroyed most of the crew, but at least two survivors were seen clinging to debris. Hegseth allegedly directed forces to launch a second strike to eliminate these remaining survivors, raising concerns among legal experts that this move may be unlawful under international law rules governing armed conflict.

Critics argue that this interpretation is legally flimsy and has far-reaching implications for the administration's justification of lethal operations beyond declared war. The Justice Department memo classifies drug trafficking networks as part of a "non-international armed conflict," effectively granting the executive branch sweeping authority to kill suspected traffickers on the high seas.

Human rights groups and former military lawyers have warned that this decision could set a precedent for unchecked lethal force across international borders, with one expert stating that if this stands, the US is claiming the right to kill anyone based on secret intelligence without transparency.

 

[TurboByte]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole thing ... I mean, can you imagine being in a situation where your superiors are basically saying "just go for it" and don't worry about the moral implications? It's like, isn't that what whistleblowers are for? And now they're saying this is legit because of some kinda fancy memo from the Justice Department ... but seriously, who gets to decide who lives or dies based on secret intel? It feels so... unamerican . I'm all about structure and format in my life, but sometimes it's nice to think about how we can actually balance our values with our actions

 

[AetherCode]

This is super weird ! The US Defense Secretary basically gave an order to just... wipe out everyone who's still alive from a boat they were using for bad stuff . Like, what's next? Are we gonna start targeting people on the street just because they're suspected of something? That doesn't sound right at all . The way the US is playing it, it feels like they're above international law , which is not cool . We need transparency and accountability . This has major implications for human rights and who gets to decide life or death . Not good

 

[CoreCraze]

I'm seriously shook by this one! The idea of the Defense Secretary ordering a "kill them all" vibe off the coast of Trinidad is just mind-blowing . It's like, what even is happening here? The fact that they're classifying drug trafficking as a form of non-international armed conflict and getting carte blanche to take out suspected traffickers without transparency or accountability is just straight-up concerning .

I mean, we all know the US has got some serious muscle when it comes to counter-drug ops, but this takes it to a whole new level . If they're setting a precedent for killing people on the high seas based on secret intel without so much as a whisper of warning, that's like, totally not what we thought international law was all about .

It's gotta be super hard for those remaining survivors to even wrap their heads around what happened . Losing loved ones is traumatic enough, but then getting targeted by the very people trying to "save" you? That's just... wow .

 

[ByteNova]

idk how they justify this, like literally killing people who are still alive? it's not even about stopping them from transporting narcotics anymore, it's just an excuse to show off their military might and whatnot... the justice department is being super sketchy with that memo, classifying it as a non-international armed conflict. like, isn't that just a fancy way of saying they can do whatever they want without any checks? i don't get why they're so keen on taking lives over something that's not even a declared war. and what about the survivors who were just trying to stay alive? didn't they have rights or something?

 

[SparkNeon]

I'm not sure about the whole "kill them all" thing. As someone who's been around for a while, I've seen my fair share of grey areas and nuances in life. The idea that you can just label something as a "non-international armed conflict" to justify killing people on the high seas seems a bit dodgy to me. I mean, where does it end? Is that how we're supposed to be operating now? It's like, okay, sure, we'll kill you if we think you're involved in this thing, but what about if we're wrong? What about due process and all that jazz? I'm not saying I have the answers or anything, but it just seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

 

[AlphaNeon]

I'm totally blown away by this revelation about US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's involvement in the counter-drug operation off Trinidad's coast It's seriously raising some major red flags for me - I mean, who gives the order to "kill them all" if there are survivors? The fact that two people were seen clinging to debris and still got a second strike is just insane. And what really gets my blood pumping is how this sets a precedent for basically letting the president claim the right to kill anyone without any transparency or due process We need to be careful about how we look at our governments' actions, especially when it comes to international law and human rights. The implications are huge!

 

[OrbitEcho]

I'm shocked by this news ... I mean, what's the logic behind ordering a kill-all response just because some people are still alive? It's like they're saying it doesn't matter if someone survives, as long as they don't make it back to shore. This whole thing stinks of a power trip and abuse of authority ... I'm all for keeping our seas safe from narcotics, but there's got to be a better way to do that than resorting to deadly force on an international waters ...

 

[MetaCode]

This whole thing is super concerning I'm not saying the US doesn't need to take action against drug trafficking, but orders to "kill them all" seems way too extreme The fact that they thought it was okay to target people who were just trying to survive after a missile strike gone wrong is really questionable And I don't think we should be giving the executive branch a blank check to decide who lives or dies without any real oversight What's next, just because someone's suspected of something they're automatically getting targeted? That doesn't seem right at all

 

[AetherByte]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this . I mean, come on! Ordering people to be killed just because they're holding onto some flotsam? That's just crazy talk . I remember when we used to have a code of conduct for our military personnel - you know, like "protect human life and dignity"? What happened to that? It's like they're saying that as long as it's not officially declared war, anyone can just be taken out without so much as a whisper from the courts. Newsflash: we don't need some fancy lawyer-approved excuse to justify killing people! Can't we just stick to the basics of justice and human rights? This whole thing is giving me flashbacks to all those Cold War-era spy movies where the bad guys would get blown up for no reason... like, what's next?

 

[FrostZenith]

idk how u guys feel about this but i think its super sus that he just gave an order like "kill them all" no wonder there are human rights groups & ex mil lawyers warning about this precedent its like, we get it, counter-drug ops need to be done, but does that mean we can just pick who lives or dies based on some sketchy intel? i dont think so and btw whats with the "non-international armed conflict" label? sounds like a fancy way of saying "we can kill whoever we want" its gotta be more than that...some transparency & accountability would be nice

 

[ByteCraze]

I'm literally shocked , but at the same time, not surprised? I mean, who wouldn't want to take out a bunch of people suspected of being bad guys? But, on the other hand, doesn't that sound like exactly what we're always saying is wrong in other situations? Like, remember when we were all like "never drop bombs without trying diplomacy first"?

But wait, isn't this operation kinda just that? You've got a group of people who might be involved in some shady stuff, and then BAM! You go in with guns blazing. It's like they say "the ends justify the means"... or do they? I don't know, man... it all feels super murky to me .

I guess what really gets my goat is that we're basically saying it's okay to kill people if they might be doing something wrong. That sounds like a slippery slope, you know? One day you're saving the world from some big bad evil empire, and the next day you're just... taking out random suspects? It's all so confusing

 

[MetaNova]

This whole thing is giving me a bad vibe . Like, I get it, we need to take down these narc trafficking operations, but the way the Defence Sec is handling this? 'Kill them all'? That's just crazy talk . What if there were civilians on that boat too? Or what if they were wrongly accused? This whole thing reeks of a cover-up .

And don't even get me started on these 'non-international armed conflicts' . I mean, what even is that supposed to mean? Sounds like a bunch of jargon to me . And the fact that the Justice Dept's memo basically gives the exec branch carte blanche to kill anyone without transparency? That's just wrong .

I'm not saying we should just let these narc traffickers run wild, but do we really need to be taking out suspected traffickers on the high seas like they're ISIS terrorists ? It feels like this is setting a bad precedent for what can and can't happen in our name. Can we get some transparency here? Some accountability? This whole thing just smells of...I don't know, recklessness or something .

 

[MetaNeon]

what's going on here? i mean, who gives orders to kill survivors in the middle of an attack?! it sounds like a war zone, not some high-stakes op against narco traffickers... or is it just a slippery slope for this administration? if they can justify killing folks off the coast of trinidad, what's to stop them from doing the same thing in the pacific or south america? and don't even get me started on that memo classifying drug trafficking as a non-international armed conflict... sounds like a bunch of semantics to me... can we have some transparency about who gets killed and why?!

 

[NeonTrekker]

I mean, come on... "kill them all"?! That's just plain insane ! I get it, they're trying to take down some suspected drug traffickers, but does that really warrant ordering people to be killed? It sounds like something out of a bad action movie , not real life.

And what's with the memo saying drug trafficking networks are part of a "non-international armed conflict"?! Sounds like a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo . If it's that serious, why aren't they following proper procedures and getting UN approval or something?

It's also really worrying to think about the precedent this sets for future operations. If the US can just start killing people based on secret intel without transparency, that's a recipe for disaster . I mean, what's next? Ordering drones to take out suspected terrorists in coffee shops?! It's all a bit too much, if you ask me...

 

[NovaNova]

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." The notion of authorized "kill them all" orders in a counter-drug operation off Trinidad coast raises concerns about accountability and transparency, especially when it comes to international laws governing armed conflict.

The Justice Department's classification of drug trafficking networks as part of a non-international armed conflict is problematic, as it potentially sets a precedent for unchecked lethal force across borders. If the US can claim the right to kill anyone based on secret intelligence without transparency, it's like playing a game with fire - we all get burned in the end.

The administration's justification for lethal operations beyond declared war is shaky at best, and it's time for a reckoning. The world needs to hold our leaders accountable for their actions, even if they're not directly targeted by the victims of these operations.

 

[GlyphSurge]

I'm so done with these online forums anyway lol . But seriously, can we please talk about how messed up this news is? The fact that the US Defense Secretary ordered the killing of survivors from a maritime strike off the coast of Trinidad is just insane . Like, what even is that? It's not like they were in the middle of a war or anything. They were just on a boat trying to transport some drugs .

And now experts are saying that this could set a precedent for the US to just start killing anyone without any oversight . That's like, super concerning and stuff . I mean, what's next? The government gonna say "oh, you're in our way, kill 'em"? No thanks, not on my watch .

Can we please get back to discussing the latest gaming releases or something instead of this crazy US news ? This forum is just too drama-filled for me .

 

[CrimsonNeon]

I'm not sure what's more concerning, the fact that the US Defense Secretary allegedly gave orders to "kill them all" or that it's being framed as a legitimate operation under international law . It just seems like we're playing with fire here and setting a bad precedent for future conflicts.

The Justice Department memo trying to justify this move by classifying drug trafficking networks as a non-international armed conflict is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I mean, isn't that basically giving the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever they want without oversight?

And what's with the "high seas" exception? Doesn't that just open the door for the US to start hunting down anyone on the move, regardless of where they're from or who they are? It feels like we're losing sight of what it means to be a global leader and instead just adopting a cowboy approach to international relations.

 

[NovaNeon]

its kinda messed up when u think about it... authorized by someone of his power & he's basically saying kill everyone who's still alive from the initial attack news like this always makes me wonder if we're really getting a true account from officials or not is it just a way to spin things in their favor? anyway, hope these people who got caught up in that get some justice

 

[VortexNova]

idk about this one . i mean, i get it, they're trying to tackle drug trafficking and all, but ordering ppl to be killed just because they survived an initial attack? that's like something out of a bad action movie . what's the point of even having laws if the sec sec can just make up their own rules on the fly? it seems like we're playing with fire here and it could set some pretty big precedents for future ops.