The pattern is all too familiar. The Washington Post runs a story with a sensational claim: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the killing of survivors of one of the first boat attacks back in September — a coup de grace or finishing shot that would constitute a war crime. The Post appears to have had only one source making the specific claim about Hegseth, but ran with the story. What followed was a line of politicians and pundits calling for the usual criminal charges, impeachments, and resignations. Then, various sources, including the New York Times, debunked the story.
When this story broke, some of us cautioned that the law was clear, but the facts were not. Yes, it is generally a war crime to intentionally kill or order a “double tap” strike for the sole purpose of killing the survivors at sea. The Nazis were charged with such heinous acts in World War II. However, such allegations are often difficult to resolve even after investigations in the “fog of war,” where decisions are made in seconds on a battlefield. This claim was being made with only the Post and a single source as “evidence.”
The Post claimed “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.”
This is the same newspaper that won the Pulitzer Prize with the later debunked Russian collusion story — a scandal started by the Clinton campaign, which secretly funded the infamous Steele dossier.
Nevertheless, the airways were filled with experts stating categorically that a war crime was committed.
Notably, these claims were made over the Administration’s vociferous objections, which denied that any such order was given by Hegseth during the attack. Indeed, a later attack did involve survivors who were retrieved and then returned to their country.
The New York Times this week ran a multiple-source story saying that Hegseth gave no such order.
Putting aside the sensational and apparently false claim about Hegseth, the issue of the order by Admiral Bradley comes down to motivation. It is common in war to deliver a finishing blow on a vessel. It has been routinely done by many countries, including when survivors remain on board or near the boat. While countries must take reasonable measures to allow survivors to leave a sinking vessel, the demands of war often allow for a finishing shot to achieve a mission with personnel on or near the boat.
The first attack did not sink the boat in question, and Bradley ordered a second hit. If he did so to sink the vessel, he is likely within the laws of war.
Of course, reasonable people can question the overall policy and whether killing drug carriers is consistent with international law. However, that is not the specific claim raised in this controversy. The question is whether, in a military action, a second finishing shot can be delivered to complete a mission to sink a vessel. The answer is likely yes.
It is also worth noting the distinction between operations targeting boats and operations targeting people. Past presidents like Barack Obama have unilaterally ordered the killing of people abroad, including U.S. citizens. Presumably, if an attack on a targeted individual did not clearly kill that person, Obama would have ordered a second attack to finish him off.
That brings us back to the sudden appearance of this story about an attack in September. The Administration was hitting the Democratic members hard over their controversial video telling military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Those members later admitted that they could not actually name such an order. While some have demanded sedition charges against the members, I have written that such a case would be legally unfounded and would certainly collapse immediately in court. This was protected speech, even though I disagreed with these members about posting the video.
As the heat over the video continued to rise, the Post suddenly had breaking news of an illegal order from Hegseth. You would have to be a complete chump to ignore the obvious timing and purpose of such a story. The fact that the Post would run to print with a single anonymous source made the story even more incredible. Yet, it did not matter. It was a fact too good to check for the Post and a long line of experts and pundits.
It still does not matter. We are living in a post-truth political environment where media outlets feed the demands of echo-chambered readers. It was true because they wanted it to be true. They wanted Hegseth watching survivors clinging to a boat and ordering the military “to kill everybody.”
The Congress is moving forward with investigations, and that is a good thing. We should be clear on the rules of engagement and confirm that the motivation was not to kill survivors in the water. However, the real lesson here is one that still has not been learned about the corrosive effect of political bias in the media.
Polls show trust in the media at an all-time low with less than 20 percent of citizens trusting television or print media. Yet, reporters and academics continue to destroy the core principles that sustain journalism and ultimately the role of a free press in our society. Notably, writers who have been repeatedly charged with false or misleading columns are some of the greatest advocates for dropping objectivity in journalism.
Indeed, the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant is as much a criticism of the media as it is President Biden.
There was always an obvious alternative explanation for the second strike in this story. The boat was clearly not destroyed by the first attack. Yet, in the midst of the sedition debate, there was a need for an illegal order as the six Democratic members struggled to give an example to support their public call. The Post supplied it like an actor walking in on cue at just the right moment. As we investigate the claim, it would be equally commendable for the media to look into its own role in this “double tap” story. Most citizens would likely agree that the media “rules of engagement” also warrant some review.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/03/us/politics/trump-boat-strikes-survivors.html
Nyt has not “debunked” WaPo. See the link. The earlier story only reported what the White House was claiming.
“Wild Twist: NYT Rides to Hegseth’s Rescue and Demolishes WaPo’s ‘Kill Them All’ Hit Piece”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wild-twist-nyt-rides-to-hegseths-rescue-and-demolishes-wapos-kill-them-all-hit-piece/ar-AA1RyR3X
“The New York Times has reported that the Washington Post’s story regarding the U.S. military’s drug boat bombings contained inaccuracies, particularly about the orders given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The situation surrounding these strikes has raised significant legal and ethical concerns, prompting calls for more oversight.” Newsweek and Wikipedia
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/hegseth-drug-boat-strike-order-venezuela.html
Go home. It;s past your bedtime. Next time, play with people your own age and intelligence level.
Even in politically heated moments, media outlets can sometimes amplify a narrative too quickly, especially if it aligns with the broader storyline dominating the news cycle. In situations like the one you described, it’s reasonable to question whether the press examined all plausible explanations. When an event has multiple interpretations—such as why a second strike occurred—the most dramatic explanation often receives the most attention, even if a more mundane alternative exists.
At the same time, political actors sometimes search for examples that reinforce their existing arguments. During contentious debates, it’s not unusual for officials from any party to highlight incidents that appear to support their position. That dynamic can create an environment where a single event becomes a symbolic “proof point,” regardless of whether the underlying facts are fully established.
Taken together, these factors can produce a narrative that feels prematurely settled: a media eager for a compelling story, and political figures looking for confirmation of their claims. In such cases, scrutiny of both the event and the way it was covered is not only reasonable but healthy for public accountability.
. . . a media eager for a compelling story . . .
Only if it is seen as serving their left-wing political goals. For example, MSM has not been covering the very compelling story of massive Medicare fraud in Minnesota by Somalis. That is a compelling story but it does not serve their goals so they do little or nothing to report on it. That is just one of hundreds of “media blackouts” on stories harmful to the Dem establishment over the last 40 years.
President Donald Trump pardoned former private equity executive David Gentile this week, and made it so he will also be free from the responsibility of making his victims whole.
He also pardoned the drug kingpin from Honduras. While he kills “suspected” drug runners in boats.
Thank you president pedophile trump. Make America Love Pedophiles Again. MALPA
Thank you piggy prez.
Cry harder Gigi, we can’t hear you. 😂🤣😆😘
I’m gonna take a wild guess: David Gentile was as evidently guilty of factual fraud as President Trump is of your “pedophilia.”
“President Donald Trump pardoned former private equity executive David Gentile this week . . .”
That’s a lie.
Trump *commuted* Gentile’s sentence. He did not “pardon” Gentile.
“. . . and made it so he will also be free from the responsibility of making his victims whole.”
That’s also a lie.
The Court did not order restitution in the *criminal* case. Even after the commutation, there remain *civil* cases and receivership.
Typical Leftist MO: Smears that defy facts.
As the underlying claim is examined, it would be just as appropriate—indeed, necessary—for the media to scrutinize its own role in inflating this so-called “double tap” narrative. Most Americans would likely agree that it’s not only government actions that deserve review; the media’s own “rules of engagement” could use a hard look as well.
I appreciate everyone who responded to my comment at 3:37. However, I would note that all of these comments – which, again, I do appreciate – were good faith attempts at spelling out the rules of engaging boats or persons. But they did not address my question.
Again, my question is: in the good professor’s hypothetical about Obama taking a second shot at a person who was not killed in the first strike: why is a second strike needed for the hypothetical? If the point he is trying to make has to do with the difference between targeting boats and targeting people, wouldn’t a single strike on a person be sufficient for the hypothetical to work? If so, it only adds confusion to add in a spurious detail about a second strike.
No the whole point is that the second strike cannot be made without assessing whether the target is still in the fight.
Once the boat is disabled, the crew is no longer “in the fight.”
AI Overview
It is impossible to give a single, exact number for the total deaths caused by drug cartels globally over the last 50 years, as data is inconsistent and difficult to track comprehensively. However, some estimates and statistics provide a sense of the scale of violence, such as Mexico’s drug war, which has resulted in a total of 350,000–400,000 total casualties between 2006 and 2020, with a significant portion attributed to cartel violence.
Mexico’s drug war: This ongoing conflict is a major source of violence, with an estimated 350,000–400,000 total casualties from 2006–2020.
Specific high-profile cases: The actions of individual drug lords, like Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, are linked to tens of thousands of deaths.
Regional variations: The level of violence varies significantly across different regions and countries, making it difficult to establish a global total.
In the complete absence of a declaration of war by Congress and by his illegal deployment of troops to Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln unconstitutionally invaded a sovereign foreign country that had conducted a not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession per the 10th Amendment.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Congress did not issue a formal declaration of war against the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Instead, the conflict was officially considered an insurrection or rebellion, which allowed President Lincoln to use his powers as commander-in-chief to suppress it without a formal declaration.
Not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession (10th Amendment) was not, is not, and never will be “insurrection” or “rebellion.”
In the complete absence of a declaration of war by Congress and by his illegal deployment of troops to Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln unconstitutionally invaded a sovereign foreign country that had conducted a not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession per the 10th Amendment.
Per SCOTUS in 1868 and SCOTUS Chief Justice William Rehnquist a century and a half later: “Anonymous, you and your Confederate Kluxxer Democrat alias as George X, are still full of lying, seditious traitorous shit.
No matter how hard and how often you attempt to re-write history.
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile racist, and now communist, members like GeorgeX.
Presumably the land belonged to the United States and not to States. Lincoln was not going to let it go.
I previously clerked for the Department of Defense several years ago. I had a security clearance and I remember a meeting or seminar or something regarding the acronym “PEADs” (Presidential Emergency Action Documents). I remember that it was sort of a collection of sealed/classified legal memoranda and prepared courses of action that could be instructive/informative-and invoked- by the President to expand his powers and authority during national emergencies or threats.
Nothin’ happened during my time with the government and I have never heard mention of PEADS since.
But I wonder if Trump has been able to invoke any authority under PEADS to inform his Administration’s directives on the drug boats after his declared “War on Drugs” (also termed the same by previous presidents) and the correlative threat(s) posed by same?
Anyone out there who is familiar with the scope of PEADs?
I would guess that He doesn’t know that PEADs exist or know what it is.
LoL – Can you imagine what he’d do when He finds out.
O.M.G. (Run! Rosie O’Donnell Run !!!)
The criminal drug smuggling operation violated U.S. and international law, constituted an act of terrorism and war, and was interdicted in toto.
All damage to personal property and loss of life are collateral damage.
Yes, especially when you man the boat voluntarily (and for a change).
Nothing has been “debunked”. The first attack was a war crime, as was the second attack. The White House admits there were two survivors who got executed.
The White House admits there were two survivors who got executed.
The White House said the exact opposite. This lie brought to you by the same vile Democrat commie who repeatedly told us the felonious Clinton/Obama “dossier” was 100% verified intelligence agency evidence
You must be new at trying a simplistic lie like that, rookie.
Use of “Nazi” is getting old.
What can be substituted for a personnel group that want to destroy our Republic?
Republicannots.
There must be some good name for racist xenophobic white supremacist nationalists carrying signs with swastikas and looking for societal purity with themselves as template.
Whatever could that name be?
If choice, distinguishment, discernment, discrimination, and racism were unconstitutional, the American Founders and Framers would have been compelled to hang themselves.
An accurate name? Harvard university’s local glee club of the Democrats’ New Hitler Youth Brigade.
We could use the name that suits them. And we don’t need the Founders and Framers to hang them.
We already have Policy 5.56 and the necessary tools to deal with them as we did their black clad and masked violent Nazi thugs over in Afghanistan.
Want to find out if you got game instead of words after leaving the protective Democrat bubble, commie?
Bring it on – and tell us how we can make appointments for you to show up to make house calls.
It’s ironic, isn’t it.
How ’bout Alexander Hamilton for “some good name?”
“A DISCORDANT INTERMIXTURE MUST HAVE AN INJURIOUS TENDENCY”
_________________________________________________________________________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
You mean foreigners like Somalis? A billion stolen dollars of state and federal funds from social services programs and pandemic relief funds and Medicaid corruption in Minnesouta and funding Al-Shabaab in Somalia say yes.
Makes you feel good that Trump was “stop the steal” and then handed out huge amounts of cash without vetting where it went. So far there’s no evidence it went to terrorists; that’s just propaganda. But still, it would be ironic if Trump was funding Somali terrorists.
MAGAs
This is a bit of a logical nit-pick. I may be wrong and if I am, I hope someone will point out how. The good professor writes:
It is also worth noting the distinction between operations targeting boats and operations targeting people. Past presidents like Barack Obama have unilaterally ordered the killing of people abroad, including U.S. citizens. Presumably, if an attack on a targeted individual did not clearly kill that person, Obama would have ordered a second attack to finish him off.
If the point is that targeting boats is different than targeting people – and that targeting people is forbidden while targeting boats is okay – then I don’t see why the above hypothetical needs to include a “second attack to finish him off.” Wouldn’t a first, successful, attack be sufficient to make the point? Isn’t the point the professor is trying to make that a president may not “target people” – which is exactly what the Post is accusing Secretary Hegseth of?
That’s a big if, which I discern from context. But again, I could be wrong.
If the point is that targeting boats is different than targeting people – and that targeting people is forbidden while targeting boats is okay
If that is the point then the point is wrong. Targeting people is absolutely OK, so long as those people are still combatants. It only becomes forbidden when they are wounded or have otherwise been put out of action. So targeting them when they were clinging to the wreck would have been forbidden — but targeting the wreck to sink it was OK. But Awlaki and the other people 0bama’s drones targeted were actual enemy soldiers at war with the USA, and killing them was no different from killing any enemy soldier in battle.
The idea that it makes a difference what passports an enemy soldier holds has never made any sense. It has never been our practice, or that of any other army, to check an enemy’s passport before shooting him.
Much like a soldier out of uniform picking up a gun on a battlefield and fighting, pirates are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. The laws of piracy, not warfare, apply.
A soldier fighting out of uniform is a spy.
A soldier who is out of uniform while fighting does not have the protections of the Geneva Conventions and may be considered an unlawful combatant or a spy, which can lead to severe penalties, including execution. The Geneva Conventions require combatants to distinguish themselves from civilians, and failing to do so can result in loss of combatant status and protections. – westpoint.
Piracy falls under maritime law – the requirement to assist anyone disabled at sea, disabled for any reason.
The US also has military law against it after there were cases of German sub crews machine gunning the survivors of sinking ships was seen as abhorrent.
Even targeting the wreck is stupid. The shattered remains won’t stay afloat much longer and poses no risk to navigation. Anyone clinging to it can be captured and, after that, the boat may then be suitable machine gun practice. Putting $1M into sinking flotsam is a huge waste.
They may target pirates. These are un-flagged vessels outside of any coastal territorial boundaries.
War Crimes and the law:
Venezuela boat strike baloney
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/12/venezuela_boat_strike_baloney.html
“But of course this was no warship, and the drug-runners are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. What law does apply?”
The laws of stateless vessels.
The laws of a country extend 12 miles out from its shores. All vessels within that limit are subject to that country’s jurisdiction. Beyond that limit all vessels must fly the flag under whose jurisdiction they are sailing. Someone committing a crime in international waters is subject to the laws of the country under whose flag he is sailing. In addition, that country is responsible for the actions of a vessel flying its flag.
These boats are not flying Venezuela’s flag, and thus Venezuela is not legally responsible for them. They’re not flying *any* flag — so no country is responsible for their actions, but they don’t receive the protections of any country either. They are stateless vessels and, under the law, essentially pirates.
Vessels in international waters are required to monitor specific radio frequencies and to respond to the hailing of any coast guard or navy. A stateless vessel which fails to do so can be considered a pirate vessel and dealt with accordingly. Much like a soldier out of uniform picking up a gun on a battlefield and fighting, pirates are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. The laws of piracy, not warfare, apply.
This is useful, too, from a maritime expert:
It’s a pirate ship. The U.S. Marine Corps has a storied history of getting rid of pirate ships. They’re a threat no matter how you look at them. And this one contained 11 Tren de Aragua gang members, the world’s worst of the worst.
Darn right they needed to get rid of it. The Trump team was right in calling it self-defense.
An entire carrier group against 2-3 guys in a small boat? What was the threat? A nasty paint scuff when the carrier or one of the many support ships ran them over?
Trump already caught a couple of them and just sent them back. Being in a gang was insufficient.
An entire carrier group against 2-3 guys in a small boat? What was the threat?
100,000 dead Americans every single year just isn’t enough death to satisfy Biden’s Bolshevik Birthing Boyz, they need more.
Just as they claim we don’t have enough home grown rapists, murderers, and drug deals and therefore Biden was forced to import hundreds of thousands more as Illegal Aliens.
Oh the wails of a rocket taking out 2-3 narco-terrorists in a fast boat! NOT FIGHTING TERRORISTS FAIR!!!!
Imagine the wails if they knew how many times in A’Stan and Iraq (or Vietnam) we got our JTAC or FAC to call in a pair of fast air to drop a couple of very expensive Paveways or on one enemy sniper causing casualties from a woodline.
And not a small boat anywhere in sight!
The 100,000 chose to use drugs bought on the street. We call that free will and the transaction a free market.
Look at the number that tobacco has killed and no one is using ballistic missile strikes on the tobacco farmers or the cigarette companies.
Good to mention the rate of murderers, rapists, and so forth is higher among Americans than it is among immigrants. America is an ugly and violent place. Recall that the guy who survived the Cambodian killing fields came to the USA and was shot to death in the street.
Targeting any vessel and it’s occupants is permitted if the are un-flagged which means a stateless vessel and inside any countries international boundary. They are not monitoring required channels and replying to hails from the Navy or US Coast Guard, then they are by law pirates and may be killed.
The Geneva convention does not apply. Mark Kelly as a Captain in the Navy and a graduate of OCS (Officers Candidate School) is very aware of this law. He is lying and trying to start a color revolution.
Mr. Turley is a constitutional scholar not an international law expert.
Individuals can only be targeted if they are a threat. If the threat is from what they know then whatever is required is OK. Therefore the killing of a US citizen who is passing on information to enemies or participating in planning terrorist acts remains a threat as long as they are breathing. If they instead are only a threat because they are driving a boat, and this boat in the middle of international waters is not, then disabling the boat ends the threat. On the battlefield if a soldier continues to hold a gun he continues to be a threat.
So, yes, agreed, the Professor is making a false claim.
The drug threat in America is due to the hopelessness that the victims feel and from which drugs offer the cheapest and most successful result. Don’t expect that having found a solution they will just switch to another solution when all the attempts they have made in other directions have failed.
That threat, from inside America, is not one that is easily handled with a missile strike. Maybe the US should try some other solution.
Individuals can only be targeted if they are a threat. So, yes, agreed, the Professor is making a false claim.
No, not agreed. You chose to leave out the part where they can get killed simply by being in the vicinity of a threat. Whether that’s the family and guests at a wedding that Obama did a rocket strike on because a wanted terrorist was there. Or the onlookers who rushed as first responders to see if any wounded could be helped, that Obama then rocketed as well to ensure if his terrorist target was still alive, he would ensure they would not be helping him to survive.
All the lawyers who supervised Obama’s hundreds of rocket attack killings, which killed far more non-combatants than they did the Americans and terrorists that he targeted, said that was completely legal. And no court of any kind of law has tried to say they and Obama were wrong.
So yes, you’re lyin’ and denyin’ like Joe Biden in hopes you can throw your shit at Professor Turley and some of it might stick.
Obama was decapitating a terrorist organization. Trump is going after the people at the very bottom of the organization, the likes of which have been stopped without missiles by the USCG. It makes America look weak that we are unable to stop a go-fast boat and capture the occupants.
“The Post supplied it like an actor walking in on cue at just the right moment.”
This implies acceptance of the belief held by many conservatives that the legacy media does the bidding of the Democrat Party. I think this belief gets it exactly backwards, and that it’s the legacy media pulling the strings, and the Democrats, as well as some less-principled Republicans, do the media’s bidding in exchange for favorable coverage.
In this specific example, one has to question the ordering of events to ascertain the most likely assignment of cause and effect. The “refuse unlawful orders” video seemed to come out of nowhere, and wasn’t a reaction to some specific example of an unlawful order. It seems more likely that the Washington Post was sitting on the double-tap story, holding it for maximum impact (and perhaps hoping that better sourcing would emerge). The WP pulled some Democrat strings, informing them of the story they were about to break, giving those Democrats the opportunity to proactively get out in front of it, while maximizing the impact for the story for the WP.
I believe that politicians are motivated by money first and power second, and the power aspect is motivated by the opportunity for more money. The legacy media, on the other hand, is primarily motivated by utopian/dystopian principles, a desire to “change the world” to make it a better place, principles often motivated by misplaced guilt.
Whenever I hear conservatives complain about a specific example of the legacy media acting as an extension of the Democrat Party, I swap cause/effect in my mind to see if it makes a more believable explanation. It usually does.
This implies acceptance of the belief held by many conservatives that the legacy media does the bidding of the Democrat Party.
That implies Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Ms, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
When they become the Democrat-Marxist Media Propaganda Complex, that’s exactly what we’ve been watching through three presidential terms.
They were awarded Pulitizers for running with the felonious Clinton/Obama Russia Dossier, writing they had inside knowledge that it was indeed 100% verified. They have not yet given them back in shame.
And now we just had four years of that legacy Marxist Media telling us daily that there was no crisis at the southern border, and a vigorous Joe Biden was working his dozens of brilliant young aids to the point of exhaustion trying to keep up with him.
And we’re also supposed not to notice that all their mistakes, every single time, put a Republican like Trump in a negative light – but it’s never the other way making Democrats look bad when they make a mistake?
Back to the Democrat Borg with you, you vicious but inept commie liar.
In my head I am picturing a single-frame cartoon showing weary SCOTUS members sharing morning coffee around a table in chambers, with a fist coming thru the door holding papers labeled “Petitions for Certiorari.”
One of the justices bemoans, “Oh no, NOW what did he do.”
(Actually, I’m lovin’ it. Thanks to the Democrats, SCOTUS has probably never before been so taxed to carefully define/delineate the parameters of each branch of government.”
) not “
Lin – and it couldn’t have come at a better time, IMHO.
NotSoOld: But did you laugh or smile? I was just fooling around, my feeble trying to be funny.
Still, your point applies.
Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving weekend
Lin – I did smile, as I appreciated the mental image.
I did – and same for you, and warmest wishes for your Christmas holiday (perhaps I shouldn’t assume?).
KBJ just said in a session that she’s not part of the government. Whew…
AI Overview
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a member of the U.S. government, as the judiciary is one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government under the Constitution.
News reports from Supreme Court sessions and public appearances on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, do not contain a statement from Justice Jackson saying she is “not part of the government.” She participated in oral arguments today in the cases Trump v. Slaughter and a tariff case, where she asked the Solicitor General questions about the limits of presidential power and climate change-related tariffs.
It is likely the comment you heard was taken out of context or refers to her past statements clarifying the limits of judicial power within the government’s separation of powers.
There are never links to back up the claims.
Calling it “maybe the greatest honor in the world, quite frankly,” Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that the International Criminal Court in The Hague has invited him to attend one of their meetings.
“They said it was in response to things I’ve done as president,” Trump told reporters. “It will probably be some kind ceremony to award a medal or maybe a gleaming gold trophy.”
Trump revealed that he will not be The Hague’s sole honoree, noting, “They also invited Pete. They said he deserves special recognition.”
Calling The Hague invitation “much better than a stupid Nobel,” Trump quipped, “They never invited Obama!”
Was that intended to be humorous? If so, you missed the marg!
If that were ever to happen, the ICC would be warned to keep its hands off him. If they ever dare to lay their hands on any US serviceman, let alone the president, every single member of that so-called “court” will be killed.
Milhouse,
Well said. Heck, I would even re-enlist and volunteer to be assigned to a unit at the tip of the spear.
Where does the ICC obtain jurisdiction or dominion over the United States or any officer thereof?
Answer: Nowhere!
There are 125 countries that signed the Rome Statutes allowing jurisdiction of the ICC in their countries.
The United States is not one of them.
You are right that the ICC would have no jurisdiction over Trump and Hegseth while they are inside the US, but ONLY within the US.
However, if Trump or Hegseth were to be the subject of an arrest warrant from the ICC, then they would not be able to travel to any of the 125 countries for fear of arrest. Once outside the United States ANYONE becomes subject to the laws and jurisdiction of what ever country they are in. For instance, if Hegseth were to travel to Canada, then he would likely be arrested.
We can see this problem with Putin. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for him. Now he has to be very careful where he travels.
Did you wonder why his recent meeting with Trump was in Alaska ??
The shortest route from Moscow to the US is by flying west over Europe. Instead Putin flew east over northern Siberia and the Bering Strait to Alaska. He couldn’t risk flying over Europe because if he was forced to land en route, then he would be arrested.
Netanyahu has a similar problem since the ICC issued an arrest warrant for him.
The shortest route from Tel Aviv is over Europe through the airspaces of Greece, Italy, France and the UK. However he takes a much longer and circuitous route down the center of the Mediterranean threading the needle outside European airspace and through the Straits of Gibraltar then across the Atlantic. This is a much longer route and almost at the limit of his 767 aircraft. For his last visit, he had to offload many people who normally travel with him because they needed to lighten the load in order to make the trip without refueling.
So you see, if by chance the ICC decided to issue warrants for Trump or Hegseth, then all of a sudden the world would become a very small place for them.
A signature to the Rome Statutes allowing jurisdiction of the ICC in, and dominion over, America would have been unconstitutional and, likely, hazardous for the signatory’s health.
It is not a matter of the ICC having jurisdiction or dominion over the United States.
It clearly does not have jurisdiction here.
However it does have jurisdiction over PEOPLE who happen to be present in any of the 125 countries that recognize the ICC. Whether that person is a US citizen is irrelevant. When present in any other country a US citizen is subject to the laws and jurisdiction of that country.
That is why Putin and Netanyahu have to be very, very careful where and how they travel.
And, of course, abductions of citizens of sovereign nations would constitute an act of war.
In the cases you reference, Russia and Israel would have the moral and legal bases to immediately respond kinetically with extreme prejudice.
If you are physically present in another country and arrested on an arrest warrant that is valid in that country, then it is NOT an abduction.
You are simply legally arrested pursuant to that country’s laws.
When you are in another country you are subject to THEIR laws.
Putin and Netanyahu are acutely aware of this, and adjust their travel accordingly.
I’ll buy tickets for that show!
“ICC sweeps up Putin in signatory country, ICBMs on the way; film at eleven!”
That’s assuming that the Russians haven’t been hoping that Putin’s reign of terror comes to an end. No one is starting a war over Putin being captured. Loud protests? Sure. But no substantial action.
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for him. Now he has to be very careful where he travels.
The communists, genocidal anti-Semitics, and police state fascists that call themselves the ICC should be far, far more careful than those they decide to fvck over for political reasons with their arrest warrants. The ICC and any country deciding to back any arrest like this better figure out how many battalions are going to stand between them and the American military that will be headed their way.
The US military that will be coming for THEM, and not just to bring back just the American president they arrested.
Kahdaffi thought he had real problems when Reagan only flew a missile through his bedroom window when he was not there.
So you see, little commie dreamer, if you think Vance won’t deliver a FAFO that will not be forgotten for a century or two if the ICC decides to fvck with Trump or any other American… go ahead.
Clint Eastwood had a line for that course of action as well.
“. . . then all of a sudden the world would become a very small place for them.”
And those countries would become a very dangerous place for their citizens.
See Iran.
Offer him something that no other US President was so deserving of.
Calling it “maybe the greatest honor in the world, quite frankly,” Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday…
Wrong audience to do your ininvited impromptu audition in hopes of getting a guest spot on Jimmy Kimmel, little commie apparatchik.
Even the Russian judge gives your attempt at humor a mere 2.3 for a score.
This is a legal blog, and yet as a legal blog, all the commentary so far never once touches on the fact that there are ALWAYS lawyers involved beforehand. Every single time – and apparently the media and those in office aren’t aware of that to make mention of or ask if that happened here.
Every single president whether Clinton, Obama, Biden, or Trump presents these shoot down/sink narco-terrorist interdiction programs to layers of different lawyers for their approval and for establishing where the boundaries are before the interdiction begins.
Just going on memory, the first time I recall was Clinton’s shoot down/sink interdiction program that was going on and finally got attention when it went so far as to be operating out of Peru and the airspace and waters of Peru. That just came to mind because Newt Gingrich’s oversight of the Clinton shoot down/sink program was headed by the lawyer who continued to do the same reviews during the entire Clinton presidency and then continued after he left. It came to mind because that lawyer, 30 years later, is apparently about to run for election as the new governor of Maine.
That aside, what should be patently obvious is no president, whoever they are from whichever party, simply orders the CIA, DEA, other intelligence assets and then the military and Coast Guard to go just go out and start shooting down aircraft and sinking ships without a hell of a lot of legal consultation going on to ensure that it is legal under any body of law you choose.
There are God knows how many lawyers involved each time. Lawyers from the Oval Office, the DoJ, the military, possibly the State Department, CIA and others, as well as civilian lawyers.
And yet, apparently here we are: somehow or other, through all those presidents and all those lawyers, this particular interdiction program is either a war crime or just plain murder.
One huge ball of criminal offenses by every president, every single one of those lawyers who approved them, and every person who followed the commands to fulfill those orders!
Sure… that makes perfect sense.
What about the ongoing attempt to perpetrate a coup d’etat by Obama et al.? What’s that, chopped liver?
So, when was Trump sworn into office that Obama could do a coup d’état? Can’t topple a guy from office who is not in office.
Anonymous: at December 3, 2025 at 2:22 PM
You assume that everyone’s playing fair. They don’t and probable will not unless it is to their advantage.
(that’s the Racket)
(good post)
AI Overview
It is impossible to give a single, exact number for the total deaths caused by drug cartels globally over the last 50 years, as data is inconsistent and difficult to track comprehensively. However, some estimates and statistics provide a sense of the scale of violence, such as Mexico’s drug war, which has resulted in a total of 350,000–400,000 total casualties between 2006 and 2020, with a significant portion attributed to cartel violence.
Mexico’s drug war: This ongoing conflict is a major source of violence, with an estimated 350,000–400,000 total casualties from 2006–2020.
Specific high-profile cases: The actions of individual drug lords, like Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, are linked to tens of thousands of deaths.
Regional variations: The level of violence varies significantly across different regions and countries, making it difficult to establish a global total.
The antithetical, Anti-American, and unassimilable Obamaites are so consumed with the overthrow and subjugation of Americans, so consumed with “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” that they completely overlook and dismiss the wanton mayhem and death perpetrated by felonious foreign smugglers and drug cartels, with whom America is de facto at war.
“Overlook” ? Nae, cheer them on.
Nay
Danke
Bitte schön
Looks like Donny’s little johnson may be in a bit of a pickle.
House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) leadership position among Republicans is currently “in a state of collapse,” according to a top GOP lawmaker.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) said that Johnson was losing control of his party ahead of the midterm elections.
“He certainly wouldn’t have the votes to be speaker if there was a roll-call vote tomorrow,” Stefanik explained. “I believe that the majority of Republicans would vote for new leadership. It’s that widespread.”
“Whereas Kevin McCarthy was a political animal, Mike Johnson is a political novice and boy does it show, with the House Republicans underperforming for the first time in the Trump era.
ATS – you seem massively fixated on “inside baseball”.
Personally I am about as happy with Johnson as I would be with anyone in congress.
But if the House GOP chooses to replace him – that is also fine by me.
Regardless, why would you be spreading more gossip as if it is news in an article by Turley that says ONCE AGAIN – the rush to print bad Trump press resulted in an own goal.
I do not know if this story will prove true – nor do I care. But I would bet that it does not.
If you want Current news that is relevant – Look into the 1B+ in Somali Federal Fraud in Minesota, or the renewed evidence of Visa Fraud by Ilhan Omar, Or the damning information on the handling of the CA Palisades fire by Newsome,
Or any of the flood of damning stories about fraud and incompetence involving democrats.
How many times does an individual need to experience a source for news & information that does not adhere to the classic standards of American journalism before eliminating / ignoring those sources. There are plenty of independent sources that rise to an exemplary level.
Correct.
This is a fundimental error of the left.
Credibility and respect are EARNED – they are not RIGHTS.
No one is entitled to my Trust
No one is entitled to my respect.
You must earn it.
If you behave as the left does today – you do not get respect or trust.
And that is what the Polling Turley cites demonstrates.
We see that with the MSM – which is why independent media is eating their lunch.
Independents KNOW that they will lose their audience and be out of business quickly if they do not get their facts straight.
But we also see that in posters here.
It is self evident which posters can post unsourced claims and be trusted and prove correct.
and which posters can post with multiple sources and still with near certainty prove to have distorted the facts.
What nonsense.
Anon 2:09pm – A response of “nonsense” requires an inability to face “facts.”
John Say,
Well said, especially concerning earning respect and credibility.
Paramount saw how well The Free Press was doing, their articles are factual, well balanced, their news room is a diverse mix of traditional liberals, conservatives and independents. And now The Free Press’s very own Bari Weiss has been put in charge of CBS news. We will have to see if she can bring back respect and credibility to CBS news and especially 60 Minutes.
For me with Wapo, it was roughly mid-GWB administration.
Turley’s claim the WaPo’s story has been debunked rings hollow. He says if the second strike was to destroy the boat instead of killing survivors, it isn’t a crime. The answer to one question should clear that all up. Of the at least 13 other strikes on boats in the Caribbean or Pacific, have any others with no survivors ever been struck twice? If not, the rationale for this second strike being about anything except killing the survivors seems to be hogwash.
Regarding Hegseth, if he said the specific words, “Kill them all” or any variation or not, a war crime has still been committed. The question is who will take responsibility? After My Lai, First Lieutenant William Calley was the only soldier convicted and everyone else was either cleared or not charged. Calley was sentenced to life, then reduced to 20 years, then to house arrest at Fort Benning. He only served a brief period in actual confinement. After 3 and 1/2 years, he was paroled. If the Trump administration ever pursued anyone, look for them to be pardoned before facing trial.
Lastly, if the audio of the events somehow disappears or never is heard by even Congress in secret hearings. You’ll know there’s a cover-up taking place.
Turley’s claim the WaPo’s story has been debunked rings hollow.
I hear the deep base drumming of another conspiracy theory.
WS
The whole story is a tempest in a teapot.
While many of us would prefer a crystal clear military justification for the 2nd strike,
You are not going to get a majority up in arms if that is not the case.
As to your question about survivors – This is speedboats vs. Warships. Survivors are not expected.
If your speedboat gets hit by a missle or a 5inch round – even if you manage to live, you will likely be dead before help can arrive.
There is no need to try to kill survivors. There will be no survivors.
But lets presume that somehow someone manages to survive unscathed.
All that is necescary to assure that there are no survivors is for the navy to Not spot those survivors and rescue them.
If the Trump administration wanted no survivors the cheapest way to accomplish that is to turn a blind eye to the possibility of survivors.
That is far cheaper than a 2nd missile.
And it is far easier to claim no survivors were spotted.
“Regarding Hegseth, if he said the specific words, “Kill them all” or any variation or not, a war crime has still been committed. ”
Nope. The job of the military is to kill the enemy.
This is a losing issue for the left.
People do not care – except thaey do care once again about the lies from the MSM.
My Lai was a massacre of innocent vietnamese villagers.
There are no innocents on a drug boat.
But you are correct – in the unlikely event that there was a prosecution of a soldier for overzealousness it is near certain Trump will pardon them.
The military has rules covering almost exactly this scenario, as does international law.
1. Geneva Conventions (1949)
Second Geneva Convention (Art. 12 & 18):
Protects members of armed forces and civilians who are shipwrecked at sea.
States that they must be collected and cared for, not attacked.
Survivors are considered non‑combatants once incapacitated or shipwrecked.
2. U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Article 118 (Murder): Killing persons not taking part in hostilities can be prosecuted as murder.
Article 134 (War Crimes): Incorporates violations of the laws of war, including unlawful targeting of survivors.
U.S. service members are legally bound to refuse unlawful orders, including orders to kill shipwrecked survivors.
I’ll agree with you that survivors were unexpected. The last time there were survivors they were rescued and sent to their respective countries, raising the question as to why they weren’t held and tried for their alleged crimes. This time the survivors were simply killed.
Pete Hegseth may have been inconvenienced by those damn rules of engagement yet they do exist. The job of a soldier, Secretary of War, or even President isn’t to ignore them. I can think of several reasons why an “innocent” person might be on a boat. I’ve only seen the trajectory of one boat that wasa destroyed but it was heading away from America. There are reports that some of the victims were fishermen. There is no evidence that any, let alone all of those boats were carrying drugs. If the small boat in question had eleven crewmembers/passengers, how much room would have been left for drugs.
It would have been easy for the people involved to pretend they never saw the survivors. That too would likely have gotten out and still have been a war crime as there was a duty to rescue them. Dead men telling no tales was definitely the way for Hegseth to go. Hegseth has already told three different versions of his role while the dead men haven’t contradicted any of them.
1. Geneva Conventions… Pete Hegseth may have been inconvenienced by those damn rules of engagement yet they do exist.
You lost your attempted bullshit slinging when you brought up the Geneva Convention – a perfect way to tell everyone you’ve never actually read ANY of those Geneva Conventions, even the ones we actually signed.
No uniform, flying no flag, in international waters, not signatories to any Geneva Convention… the closest these narco-terrorists get to Geneva Conventions is as unlawful combatants.
And unlawful combatants can be summarily executed on the spot, wherever they are found. Even if wounded, they can be summarily executed in the field immediately
You were done before insinuating that Hegseth certainly something almost as bad as Obama firing a second missile many minutes later to kill the first responders to his original attack on a wedding party of family friends, wives and children because a terrorist was present.
Of course, like dead men, you won’t be around to answer for your lies when, like your earlier Russia Dossier, we find it’s more Democrat-Marxist Media Propaganda Complex lies and bs.
Yeah, the crew was Shanghaied, bro!
And thank God for affirmative action, right?
Don’t leave home wiffout it!