On today’s BradCast: Things are now moving very quickly, it seems, in the story of our Defense Secretary reportedly ordering the murder of shipwrecked survivors in the Caribbean. Luckily, our guest today is able to help us make sense — where sense is to be had — of all of the different parts of this quickly spidering story. [Audio link to full show follows below this summary.]
The Trump Administration has been citing their supposed War on Drugs or War on Terror — or, as what they describe as a war on “narco-terrorists” — as legal justification for more than 20 U.S. military attacks against small boats in international waters near the coast of Venezuela. The attacks by the U.S. military have, so far, according to the Pentagon, resulted in more than 80 deaths of supposed drug-traffickers. No evidence, however, has been given by the Administration to support their claims that either drugs or “narco-terrorists” were on the defenseless boats in question when they were destroyed by U.S. rocket fire. In previous years, alleged drug boats would have been interdicted, evidence collected, and those on board either tried or interrogated to further bust up international drug cartels like the one found to have been facilitated for years by the former President of Honduras.
So, it has raised concerns from both Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress that Donald Trump, today, formally issued a pardon to the former President of Honduras who was tried and convicted by the Dept. of Justice last year to 45 years in prison for his role in trafficking some 400 tons of cocaine to the U.S.
All of that is contextual backstory to allegations, originally reported by Washington Post last week, that Trump’s Defense Secretary, former Fox “News” weekend co-host Pete Hegseth, issued orders to “kill everyone” in the Pentagon’s first attack on a supposed drug boat in early September. Two survivors of the attack, reportedly clinging to the remains of their boat, were subsequently murdered in a second kill shot, said to have been on the orders of Hegseth and carried out by Admiral Mitch Bradley. He currently leads the U.S. Special Operations Command. Before his October promotion, he served as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command that carried out the attack in question on September 2nd.
Killing victims of a boat strike is wildly unlawful under both U.S. and international law. It is even cited specifically in the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, Section 18.3.2.1, describing “Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations.” The provision warns the “requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal.” It goes on to cite, specifically: “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
After previously boasting about having watched the September 2nd attack live via drone video, Hegseth today claimed that the second strike on the survivors happened amid the “fog of war” and that he “didn’t stick around” for the rest of the mission after the first strike. Though he claims Bradley “made the right call” in killing the survivors. “He had complete authority to do it,” said the man who theoretically gave him that authority, while now appearing to throw Admiral Bradley somewhat under the bus.
And all of that, of course, comes on the heels of feigned outrage from both Hegseth and Trump just about a week ago, after a video was released by six Democratic members of Congress — all veterans of the U.S. armed forces or intelligence services — reminding members of the military that they are required to “refuse illegal orders”. The video resulted in outrageous claims by Trump that the Democratic officials had committed “sedition” which, as he also noted, is punishable by death. In response, Hegseth announced a Pentagon investigation of one of the members, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a former Navy Colonel and astronaut who could theoretically be called back into active duty by a politicized Pentagon in order to be court-martialed for, apparently, reminding troops that it is unlawful to carry out unlawful orders.
As noted, there is a whole lot going on in these quickly developing stories, but we’ve got just the guest today to help us make sense of them. We’re joined by CARRIE A. LEE, PhD, an expert on civil-military relations and, until her resignation in July, associate professor at the US Army War College, where she served as the Chair of the Department of National Security and Strategy. She is now Senior Fellow at the Democracy and Security Network for Strategic Democracy Initiatives at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Lee explains today both what a civil-military relations expert is, and why she regretfully decided to leave her post at the War College earlier this year, after determining, as she explained in a social media thread, “that the United States faces threats today that cannot be effectively fought from inside the walls” of the US Army War College. She explained at the time that “in order to speak, I had to leave.”
“I very much saw the writing on the wall after the election,” she tells me today in describing her thought process for resigning in July, including “a lot of the threats that then President-elect Trump had made about what euphemistically I would call the ‘creative uses’ of the military that he had planned.”
“It became very clear that if I had spoken out, that was going to bring an entirely unhealthy level of scrutiny to the institution I worked for, an institution that I really loved, and that I feel does outstanding work in educating future senior officers of the United States Army.”
Lee explains that she ultimately left “to fight against the politicization of the military and abuses of power using the military domestically in ways that undermine democracy and Constitutional rights.”
Today, Lee is speaking freely, as we discuss, among other things…
- The Pentagon’s (empty and/or ridiculous?) threat to reactivate Sen. Kelly for a possible court martial.
- The “politicization death spiral” underway at DoD.
- The Trump Administration becoming “enthusiastic about punishing dissent and finding ways to weaponize and use their institutions of power to punish political opponents.”
- How service members are able to determine whether an order is unlawful, and whether someone like Admiral Bradley would have the needed legal advice to know if striking shipwreck survivors was lawful or not. (“The manual explicitly says ‘patently unlawful orders’. When the manual literally gives the example that we’re talking about [‘orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal’] that’s a pretty good indication that it is patently unlawful.” She also notes: “The initial strike was probably unlawful, as well.”)
- Whether “fog of war” serves as a justifiable defense for Hegseth.
- The difficult personal decisions that career military officials are now faced with in deciding whether to stay in their positions amid the Trump Administration’s misuse of our armed forces. (See her paper published this week titled “The Soldier in the Illiberal State is a Professional Dead End”)
“I think we are talking about two separate issues in the news cycle that is going on right now, as we eagerly await updates to figure out what new turn in the hall of mirrors we are about to take,” Lee neatly summarizes our conversation. “There’s the politicization of the military and the weaponization of the military justice system to try to punish political opponents. That’s issue number one. Issue number two is what the heck is going on in the Caribbean, and are these orders lawful?; what is patently unlawful and therefore must be refused?; and what has the veneer of legal justification that would lead a military commander to go with it?”
As noted, lots to discuss on today’s BradCast…
The first deadly force strike, on each occasion each small boat and occupants was a war crime and/or murder. Altogether it was mass murder.
When people who are not a threat to the US military are killed by the military, that is a war crime in and of itself.
To kill any who survive the first strike are killed, that is a “doubling down” war crime/murder.
Those murdered by the Hegseth Department of War posed no threat to those who murdered them.