Video: Could Hegseth Face War Crimes Probe for Killing Survivors of U.S. Boat Strike? Democracy Now! speaks with journalist Spencer Ackerman about the Trump administration's deadly, ongoing attacks on alleged "drug boats" amid reports President Trump is preparing to attack Venezuela, with all airspace surrounding Venezuela now closed.
❓Questions submitted to the Copilot Chatbot 🤖 concerning these disturbing developments.
🥸 The news says that Pete Hegseth ordered a 2nd strike on an alleged drug boat to make sure there were no survivors, which could be a war crime. How could Pete Hegseth be held accountable?
🤖 If the allegations are true, Pete Hegseth could face accountability through congressional investigation, domestic prosecution, or even international war crimes proceedings. Lawmakers from both parties have already raised alarms, and legal experts say ordering a second strike to kill survivors could violate U.S. and international law.
🧾 Pathways to Accountability.
I very seriously doubt that the DOJ under the trump administration would prosecute Pete Hegseth. Congressional Oversight.
Lawmakers can launch hearings and investigations into the September 2 strike.
If evidence supports the allegations, Congress could censure him, restrict funding, or pressure the administration to remove him from office.
🧑⚖️ Domestic Prosecution.
The Department of Justice could pursue charges under U.S. law if the order is deemed unlawful.
Military justice mechanisms (Uniform Code of Military Justice) could apply if service members acted under unlawful orders.
International Law.
Targeting survivors is widely considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
If domestic accountability fails, international bodies (such as the International Criminal Court, though the U.S. is not a member) could theoretically investigate.
Political Consequences.
Even without formal prosecution, bipartisan scrutiny could erode his legitimacy and force resignation or dismissal.
⚖️ Why this is seen as a possible war crime.
•Initial strike: A suspected Venezuelan drug boat was hit, leaving survivors.
•Second strike: Reports say Hegseth ordered a follow‑up strike to ensure "no survivors".
•Legal issue: Killing survivors who are hors de combat (no longer fighting) is prohibited under international humanitarian law.
•Expert view: Military analysts and lawmakers have described this as a “possible war crime".
🧬 Mythic framing.
This is a case of Ceremonial Title Drift: the role of Defense Secretary carries immense symbolic weight, but when paired with alleged unlawful orders, the title itself becomes contested. Accountability here is not just legal but rhetorical -- whether the officeholder can still embody the sanctity of command after such allegations.
🧑⚖️ Bottom line: If proven, Hegseth could be held accountable through congressional investigation, domestic prosecution, or international law. At minimum, the allegations already place him under bipartisan scrutiny and raise serious questions about the legality of U.S. operations in the Caribbean.
🥸 I very seriously doubt that the DOJ under the trump administration would prosecute Pete Hegseth.
That doubt is well‑founded. In practice, accountability for alleged war crimes depends heavily on **political will**, not just legal frameworks.
🧾 Why DOJ prosecution is unlikely under Trump.
Executive alignment: Pete Hegseth is a close ally of Trump. The DOJ, under Trump's administration, is unlikely to pursue charges against someone in his inner circle.
Chain of command: The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, so politically sensitive cases often stall if they implicate key figures.
Historical precedent: U.S. administrations rarely prosecute their own senior officials for alleged war crimes. Investigations are more likely to be handled internally or quietly shelved.
⚖️ Alternative accountability routes.
•Congressional oversight: Lawmakers can hold hearings, demand testimony, and pressure the administration, even if DOJ won't act.
•International scrutiny: While the U.S. isn't a member of the International Criminal Court, other international bodies or allied nations could raise the issue diplomatically.
•Political consequences: Even without prosecution, bipartisan criticism can erode legitimacy, force resignation, or limit future influence.
🧬 Mythic framing.
This is a case of Rule Defiance Drift: the legal framework exists, but enforcement drifts depending on who holds power. The DOJ under Trump is unlikely to act against Hegseth, so accountability shifts into the rhetorical and political arena rather than the judicial one.
🥸 This seems like an "illegal order" that someone carrying it out might have considered not following. Though apparently they didn't. Could the people carrying out the order be held accountable?
🤖 You've put your finger on a central issue in military law: **responsibility for following or refusing unlawful orders.
🧾 The legal framework.
Obligation to refuse unlawful orders.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and international law (including the Geneva Conventions), service members are required to disobey orders that are manifestly illegal.
🚨 Illegal order example.
An order to kill survivors who are hors de combat (no longer fighting) would generally be considered unlawful. 🧑⚖️ Accountability.
•The person who gives the order can be held responsible for issuing it.
•The person who carries out the order can also be held responsible if the illegality was clear. "Just following orders" is not a complete defense in war crimes cases.
⚖️ Historical precedent.
Nuremberg Trials: Established that individuals cannot escape liability by claiming they were following orders if those orders were obviously illegal.
U.S. military practice: Soldiers are trained that they must refuse unlawful orders, even from superiors.
✅ Practical reality.
In theory, both the commander and the executors could be held accountable.
In practice, accountability often depends on political will. Lower‑ranking personnel may face more immediate risk if investigations occur, while senior officials are more shielded.
If the order was ambiguous or framed as legitimate military necessity, executors might argue they didn’t recognize it as unlawful — but if evidence shows survivors were deliberately targeted, that defense weakens.
🧬 Mythic framing.
This is a case of Motivation Ambiguity Drift: the executors' motives blur between obedience, fear of reprisal, and recognition of illegality. The law demands clarity -- refusal of unlawful orders -- but the lived reality often drifts into compliance under pressure.
So yes, the people carrying out the order *could* be held accountable, especially if the illegality was obvious. But whether they *will* be depends on investigations, politics, and the willingness of institutions to enforce the rules.🛑
🥸 My opinion is that Pete is a murderer and he should face the death penalty. Also possibly all those who carried out the obviously illegal order to kill surviors (Admiral Frank M. Bradley). As a confirmed White Supremacist, Pete likely sees these people as less than human, and therefore has no problem ordering their extrajudicial murders. He probably views what he did as very manly.
btw, Trump's pardon of Honduras's ex-president shows counter-drug effort is based on lies and hypocrisy. As per a Guardian article, king d0nald has said he will issue a pardon for "former Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernández ... despite the fact that Hernández was sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for allegedly creating a cocaine superhighway to the United States".
🤑 What's really going on? King d0nald wants Nicolás Maduro out as president of Venezuela so American Oil companies can move in and make lots and lots of money.🛢️🛢️
💊 btw, "Maduro's regime is undoubtedly corrupt and autocratic, but not all the US allegations hold up. The administration accuses Maduro of intentionally flooding the US with drugs and criminals, and of effectively controlling prison gangs like Tren de Aragua. While the Venezuelan government has well-documented ties to crime, Maduro is almost certainly not personally directing drug shipments. Meanwhile, Tren de Aragua ... is almost certainly not involved in transnational trafficking".
