Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
National Review: 'We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal' Is Not a Defense
Nov. 30, 2025
The Corner
NR PLUS National Security & Defense
We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal Is Not a Defense
By Andrew C. McCarthy
November 29, 2025 8:20 PM

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a meeting with Dominican Republic President Luis Abinader, in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, November 26, 2025. (Erika Santelices/Reuters)
An explosive Washington Post report, the subject of so much discussion the past two days, says that, in the first missile strike the Trump Defense Department carried out against operatives of a boat suspected of transporting narcotics on the high seas off Venezuela, two survivors were rendered shipwrecked. As they clung to the wreckage, the U.S. commander ordered a second strike, which killed them.
If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say at best because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict. (See my Saturday column, with links to prior posts on this subject.)
Nevertheless, even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors (i.e., suspected members of drug cartels that the administration has dubiously designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)), the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered hors de combat (out of the fighting) including by shipwreck.
To reiterate, I dont accept that the ship operators are enemy combatants even if one overlooks that the administration has not proven that they are drug traffickers or members of designated FTOs. There is no armed conflict. They may be criminals (if it is proven that they are importing illegal narcotics), but they are not combatants.
{snip}
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. @AndrewCMcCarthy
The Corner
NR PLUS National Security & Defense
We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal Is Not a Defense
By Andrew C. McCarthy
November 29, 2025 8:20 PM

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a meeting with Dominican Republic President Luis Abinader, in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, November 26, 2025. (Erika Santelices/Reuters)
An explosive Washington Post report, the subject of so much discussion the past two days, says that, in the first missile strike the Trump Defense Department carried out against operatives of a boat suspected of transporting narcotics on the high seas off Venezuela, two survivors were rendered shipwrecked. As they clung to the wreckage, the U.S. commander ordered a second strike, which killed them.
If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say at best because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict. (See my Saturday column, with links to prior posts on this subject.)
Nevertheless, even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors (i.e., suspected members of drug cartels that the administration has dubiously designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)), the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered hors de combat (out of the fighting) including by shipwreck.
To reiterate, I dont accept that the ship operators are enemy combatants even if one overlooks that the administration has not proven that they are drug traffickers or members of designated FTOs. There is no armed conflict. They may be criminals (if it is proven that they are importing illegal narcotics), but they are not combatants.
{snip}
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. @AndrewCMcCarthy
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
National Review: 'We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal' Is Not a Defense (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Sunday
OP
Irish_Dem
(78,503 posts)1. They are admitting to premeditated murder.
First Degree Murder.
underpants
(194,185 posts)2. What everyone is jumping over is that Hegseth was given an illegal order
What the Dem Senators said on the video/commercial applies to Hegseth as well and he isnt even in the military. Hegseth says hes sure he/they have authority to do this. No, they dont. Just because a President (sadly in this case Trump) tells you to do something doesnt make it legal.
McCarthy makes very accurate points here. The illegality is without question.