December 10, 2025 • 24 mins
The video is, according to those who have seen it, horrific to watch. Two sailors cling to the debris of a blown-up boat in the Caribbean, when they’re killed by a US military strike.
This occurred after the first strike on their boat failed to kill everybody on board.
It has sparked outrage, and led to accusations – by Democrat and Republican lawmakers alike – that the US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has presided over a military mission that may have been marked by war crimes.
Today, Andrew Bell, an expert on law and ethics in military operations, and a senior research scholar at the Center for International Security and Conflict at Stanford University, on why Donald Trump has ordered multiple boat strikes in the Caribbean, which have killed at least 80 people. And whether this could splinter the MAGA movement.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Seelinger Morris. It's Monday,
December 15th. The video is, according to those who've seen it,
horrific to watch two sailors cling to bits of their
(00:21):
blown up boat in the Caribbean when they're killed by
a US military strike. This only after the first strike
on their boat failed to kill everybody on board. It
has sparked outrage and led to accusations by Democrat and
Republican lawmakers alike that the US secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth,
(00:42):
has presided over a military mission that may have been
marked by war crimes. Today, Andrew Bell, an expert on
law and ethics in military operations and a senior research
scholar at the center for International Security and Conflict at
Stanford University on why Donald Trump has ordered multiple boat
strikes in the Caribbean, which have killed at least 80 people,
(01:04):
and whether this could splinter the MAGA movement. Hello, Andrew,
and welcome to the Morning Edition.
S2 (01:15):
Thanks. It's good to be here.
S1 (01:16):
So first off, I guess, what was your reaction when
you first heard reports about this latest American military strike
on a boat allegedly carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela?
S2 (01:26):
It's, uh, it's been it's been very troubling, I have
to say.
S3 (01:30):
President Trump announced late today that the United States has
sunk a boat after it left Venezuela, carrying.
S4 (01:36):
Confirmed that the U.S. launched a strike in the southern
Caribbean against a Venezuelan vessel that was allegedly carrying drugs.
S5 (01:43):
The Trump administration is not backing down on its strategy
of lethal, but legally questionable strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels.
Even amid all the scrutiny surrounding the double tap strike
on a boat back in September with some lawmakers.
S6 (01:58):
Venezuela has been very bad, both in terms of drugs
and sending some of the worst criminals anywhere in the
world into our country.
S2 (02:06):
So, of course, there's significant legal implications. There are moral
ethical implications. But for me, I think on a more
personal level as well, the tie to the US military,
I have some US military service in my background as well,
and it is very troubling to see this play out
and to play out as long as it has. So
it's very important to to have these conversations about what
exactly is happening and what the next steps may be.
S1 (02:30):
Okay, we're going to get into all of the implications
in just a moment, and why it's become such a
lightning rod for both Democrats and Republicans alike. But can
you tell me why has Donald Trump actually been ordering
these strikes to begin with?
S2 (02:42):
Yeah. So I think the clearest answer is, is essentially
what he signaled when he was elected. He wanted to
pursue an America first policy. He has definitely signaled throughout
most of his time in politics that he's not going
to be constrained by anything resembling ethics or law or
any kind of constraints on what he thinks is his
power to conduct policy. And so I think if you
(03:05):
if you take these into combination together, he is going
to pursue an anti-drug campaign to ostensibly protect America by
any means that he can or that he can get
away with it should be noted that the purpose of
the strikes is ostensibly a good one, that we do
want to protect the United States from drugs infiltrating our borders,
(03:29):
that they do cause a lot of harm for our citizens. Uh,
the question, of course, is that when we're talking about
an anti-drug campaign to protect Americans and drugs flooding into America. Uh,
he seems to be raising a lot of questions because
at the same time that he's committing these strikes or
this campaign, he's also turning around and issuing pardons for
(03:50):
the Honduran former leader, who was convicted of major drug
operations against the United States.
S7 (03:55):
Uh, the people of Honduras really thought he was set up,
and it was a terrible thing. He was the president
of the country, and they basically said he was a
drug dealer because he was the president of the country.
S2 (04:06):
So it's it's hard to know exactly where his true
initiative lies. But I think essentially it does lie somewhere
in the realm of he's going to try to use
force as much as he can. He's going to direct
it against those he sees as adversaries. And and there's
not going to be much that the law or ethics
has to say in trying to trying to constrain that.
S8 (04:24):
Okay. Well, let's get into.
S1 (04:25):
One of the major questions here, which is do these
strikes because there's been a number of them, do they
actually breach the rule of law? Because I know that
I've been watching them as a layperson. I see the
United States military attacking a Venezuelan boat. This is the
last one in particular, though no one on that boat
has been convicted by a U.S. court of smuggling drugs
into the country, as I understand it. And the United
(04:46):
States and Venezuela are not actually at war. And I
think is that legal?
S2 (04:53):
Right. So there are a number of legal issues that
are that are tied up in this, and it gets
a little bit complex, but essentially when you get down
to it, the legal issues, after you peel them back
a little bit, they're actually they're actually pretty clear. Um,
and this is one of the more frustrating things about
watching this play out in the US military and by
the administration. So essentially, we are talking about unlawful actions,
(05:14):
pretty starkly unlawful actions, and in a number of different
realms of law. So, um, all these coming together paints
a strong picture of a sense of, of, of quite, um,
grand impunity or perceived impunity by, uh, the president, perhaps
the most, most clear way to, to, to frame it is, um,
despite the fact that there's been a lot of discussion
about the laws of war, about war crimes, or is
(05:37):
this is this legal in law? Um, really a lot
of that is a bit of a is a bit
of a smokescreen or a bit of confusion around the
essential fact that what we're talking about is extrajudicial killing.
So war and war crimes and the laws of war
obviously apply during war. During war time. They're designed essentially
for a number of reasons. one to protect civilians and
(05:58):
limit harm to civilians. But the flip side is actually
they're designed to protect soldiers. And the design was actually
they were designed more to protect soldiers before this idea
that we should also protect civilians came into a global
norm in the, in the, in the 20th century or so. Essentially,
the idea was we know soldiers are going to fight.
We know they're going to commit killing during wartime. We
(06:19):
don't think that they should be prosecuted and sent to
jail for committing these actions on behalf of their state.
We don't want to send soldiers abroad to do what
we asked them to do, and then have them come
home and be prosecuted for killing, because killing generally is
an unlawful act. And so there's a special carve out
called the Combatants Privilege, which allows soldiers to engage in
war and not be prosecuted for it as long as
(06:41):
it's done in a lawful manner and against other combatants.
We don't want them killing civilians if they can avoid it. Well,
the critical point about that is this is all pertains
to wartime. So we allow this broad exception to occur
for soldiers during wartime. We don't want soldiers killing civilians
or other people outside of war, because the other name
for that essentially is extrajudicial killing or murder. And what
(07:03):
we have here is essentially a case where there's almost
no evidence whatsoever that there's a war that's occurring or
anything that would conceivably be categorized as a war happening
between the United States and the drug gangs that that
the president is directing these targeted strikes against. So essentially,
just looking in pure terms of the actual strikes themselves,
(07:26):
the killing that's happening, this is a tantamount to it's
a strong word, but there's really no other legal way
to describe it as murder being committed by the US
military on behalf of or on the orders of the administration,
the Secretary of Defense, and even those who flow down
the chain of command.
S1 (07:44):
Okay. Wow. So if I understand correctly, you're saying this
appears to be state sanctioned murder. So has Donald Trump
or the administration just outright lied? Because we know that
the administration has, I think, been justifying these attacks on
these boats over the last couple of months by saying
that the US is in an armed conflict with, quote unquote,
narco terrorists, unquote, trying to kill Americans. Uh, you know,
(08:08):
which the administration argues permits the use of lethal force.
So is that just an out and out lie?
S2 (08:15):
Well, so there's been this tradition of US presidents, um,
the US government, US presidents, different executives over the past
half century or so to continually push the envelope in
various ways about using force and using executive power. Uh,
and in this sense, the Trump administration is very much
continuing this line of, of action. Um, and so I
(08:35):
don't want to necessarily focus only on this administration in
the sense of increasing reliance on military power in ways
that are potentially expanding the interpretation of laws of war
or US domestic law. But what we have here that's
different is that the administration is making the case that
(08:56):
the laws of war apply. That there's a war that's
happening between the US and these drug gangs in a
situation where their evidence points completely against that interpretation. There's
virtually no evidence whatsoever that there's some sort of war
state or a military action or combat operations happening between
(09:19):
the US and the US military and these these drug
gangs and these drug drug traffickers. Now, it's been kind
of hard to to disentangle or to pull out the
administration's justification for this. So sometime late in October, the
administration did issue a letter to Congress that reportedly was
outlining the legal justifications and attempting to paint a picture
(09:42):
of of a legal situation that would permit the use
of force, assuming that this was some sort of campaign
during combat operations or during during a conflict. And in
doing so, I think the administration was trying to draw
upon this history that the US has had over the
past 20 years in the gwot post-war era of using
drone strikes, of targeting individuals in campaigns against terrorist groups
(10:07):
or insurgent groups. Campaigns in Africa and Yemen, Iraq and
Afghanistan and Pakistan, of course. And so the administration is
trying to, I think, put this current situation in the
same category as that, that we're just committing drone strikes.
And and I think in some ways, they're hoping that
the American public will just sort of see this all
(10:27):
as part and parcel of the same thing that the
US has been doing over the past 20 years. We've
unfortunately become somewhat inured, inured to using drone strikes and
military force around the world against against individuals and different
non-state groups. And for what it's worth, on the face
of it, that that sounds kind of similar if you're
if you're not thinking about these too deeply. And I
(10:49):
think many in the American populace have sort of taken
that that attitude because it's hard to understand. And there's,
you know, because of the legal issues that could be involved.
But most clearly, the biggest difference, again, as I mentioned,
is that when you don't have an actual state of
war or some sort of, uh, intensity of combat operations
(11:11):
happening between the US and a non-state armed group such
as these, these drug groups, then you don't have you
don't have a war, you don't have a state of war.
And if you don't have a state of war, then
you don't have the law of armed conflict or the
laws of war. And if you don't have the laws
of war, then you don't have these various, uh, privileges
or exceptions that allow you to, to use military force
against individuals. And so I'll just say is that, uh,
(11:35):
I think the administration is trying desperately to paint this picture.
They're trying to put these different legal pieces together from
what we understand in the reporting. They're trying to paint
this as, um, the drug groups, as an organized armed group.
And there are different requirements for that under international law.
I think they're trying to make the argument that these
drugs are somehow an attack on American citizens, that somehow
(11:56):
American citizens will die because of these drugs, and therefore
that equates to an attack that these drugs are war
sustaining material, which there's a there's some, you know, some
exceptions or some categories in international law for you to
be able to attack those or maybe military objectives. But um,
but again, it's, it's, you know, apart from all these
legal interpretations and maneuvers that the administration is trying to make,
(12:17):
it essentially goes back to the idea of, do you
have any evidence that there is a war happening between, uh,
these drug cartels and and unfortunately, uh, I think the
silence is deafening. We do not see any, any evidence
put forward at all by the administration. And I think
that that in a lot of ways tells us what
we need to understand about the true characterization of this,
of this campaign.
S1 (12:37):
We know that this strike on September 2nd is really
horrified people. The president of Colombia has said that it
constitutes a crime against humanity. So can you briefly walk
us through this September 2nd strike and in particular the
second strike, and why it's been so chilling for so
many people?
S2 (12:55):
Sure. So I think the exact circumstances and the facts
from that case are still not completely clear. And there's
ongoing investigation and reporting. That's, I think, trying to uncover
a little bit more as to what happened during that event.
As best as we can tell at this time from
the reporting. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of defense, did issue
orders on behalf of President Trump to start this campaign
(13:17):
of strikes against drug vessels in the Caribbean at the
time and with the order to not necessarily to to
leave no quarter, but that to kill all the sailors
on board. So it's a somewhat a slight differentiation in meaning,
but essentially they're all it gets to the similar point
of they wanted to ensure that the sailors on those
(13:40):
ships were, were struck and killed, that the ships themselves
would be sunk and the drugs would be, would then
be lost at sea. So the reporting, from what we
can tell so far has been that the military was
tracking a drug vessel engaged in one of these these
drug transit routes. After some time of tracking it, the
order was given by Secretary Hegseth, flowing through through the
(14:02):
admiral in charge of the task force at the time,
the JSOC task force to commit the strike. And from
what we understand, it was about a 40 minute time
period or so that this ship was in distress, that
the sailors were there trying to survive that situation, at
which point Second Strike was then called on the ship.
S9 (14:22):
We're learning more details on the controversial double tap strike
that killed survivors on an alleged drug boat near Venezuela.
S10 (14:29):
Exclusive Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will be on Capitol Hill
this afternoon. He's briefing the group of top lawmakers known
as the Gang of Eight, on a lethal attack on
a suspected drug boat that some are calling a war crime.
The early September.
S2 (14:42):
It's notable that at that time, there were not orders
given to the military forces on site or in conducting
the strike as to what what they should do if
there were survivors that that just had not been under
consideration as part of the initial plans. Interestingly, later, later
strikes did then take this this eventuality into into account
so that they did have resources on hand to rescue
(15:05):
those sailors and then to repatriate them to, to, to
their home nation or to wherever. So essentially, um, the,
the laws were being or the directives were being done
on the fly, in a sense, as they understood the
implications of what was happening as part of this military campaign.
S1 (15:23):
We'll be right back. And so, part of the horror,
I guess, that people have expressed in responding to these
reports is that the video of the attack, as I
understand it, suggests that the two remaining surviving sailors who
(15:46):
weren't killed in the first strike, that they were just
holding on to remains of their boat. Right. That contrary
to the administration's claims that these two survivors had radioed
for backup and they were therefore about to re-enter combat
and I guess, be in a position to harm American
citizens by somehow getting the drugs to shore. That's the problem, right?
That the video would suggest quite the opposite, that actually
(16:07):
these two people were possibly very close to slipping into
the ocean holding, you know, from holding onto the debris.
S2 (16:15):
Yes, absolutely. And of course, we still don't. We haven't
seen the the public video. So we don't know exactly
what the status was. And there's different interpretations by different
members of Congress as to what exactly was happening. But
essentially the argument that's being put forward by by some Republicans,
Senator Cotton being one of them, that somehow they were
trying to, quote unquote, get back in the fight or
(16:37):
radio for help, for assistance from other drug members. It's it's, uh,
it's a bit of smoke and mirrors because essentially what
you have is, is a ship shipwrecked? Uh, crew. They're
they're in the water. The vessel is burning. They're clearly
in distress. Um, at which point all the obligations under
international law and us US law then kick in, and
that you're supposed to provide assistance to them. So the
(16:58):
fact that at that point, someone in the chain of
command then authorized yet another strike is extremely troubling, extremely problematic,
and I think just speaks more generally to the very
severe issues regarding legal constraints and the legal advice and
the involvement of the legal institutions in the US military
(17:20):
in providing guidance to the to US military operational forces
on the employment of force. This essentially should not be happening. Um,
and those who have served in positions of judge advocates
or jags in the US military on the whole, have
been pretty, pretty well horrified to watch and see what
what has been happening. Uh, there's been a story, I think,
(17:42):
a justifiable one that the military has told itself in
a lot of ways in the post-Vietnam era, which is
that military has generally adopted very strong norms regarding lawful
use of force. Ethical employment of combat combat forces, an
attempt to try to be on the right side of history,
to earn that legitimacy that the military has earned over
(18:03):
the past half century or so, and justifiably so. Um,
and to to see this play out in the way
that it has, I think, has shattered a lot of
illusions that that the military has had about how strong
those norms are and how much it is able to
defend itself against the political pressures that could be coming
from political actors above that may not have those ideals
(18:24):
at heart.
S1 (18:25):
And there's been some notable Republicans, right, who have really
spoken out against this. I know that Senator Rand Paul,
he accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of either lying in
his public response to news reports about the strike, and
he has co-sponsored resolutions to block unauthorized military action in
the Caribbean and Venezuela. And we know that, again, Republican
(18:46):
Senator Thom Tillis, he told CNN that whoever was responsible
for ordering the second boat strike needs to be held accountable,
saying you don't have to have served in the military
to understand that that was a violation of ethical, moral
and legal code. So are we seeing a splintering of
the MAGA movement, do you think, or is that is
it to too strong to say that, or are we
(19:08):
witnessing something of a turning point?
S2 (19:11):
Yeah, it's a it's a really good question. And I
think we'll we'll see. I think we've been to a
point before where it seemed as if President Trump was
at his nadir and, and maybe had lost his, his, uh,
the opportunity to, to be part of politics and, and
the wake of the January 6th, uh, events and, um,
only to see him come roaring back and, uh, regain
(19:32):
the enthusiasm of MAGA base and come to power. So
I think we are seeing a bit of a splintering, uh,
there certainly there's some daylight that we haven't seen in
the prior months. Um, but I, I'm hesitant to say
that there'll be any long term consequences for the president
himself that comes out of this. I think the strongest, uh,
(19:53):
perhaps constraint that or greatest reaction we might see at
some point if this does develop into a true scandal
legally and politically, is that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
would be asked to step down. I have a hard
time really seeing that because Trump is very, very keen
on loyalty and loyalty among his staff. And it's important
(20:15):
to remember that the secretary defense secretary is there precisely
because of his lack of experience, of his lack of
of authority and knowledge on these issues. The characteristics that
may put him there are the ones that have led
to this kind of event. And it really goes to
show why that position is so important. You know, perhaps
the number two most powerful position in the world. And
(20:37):
and we'll see where it goes from here. So it
just depends on the nature of the Republicans in Congress and,
and the American people. And we'll hope that there will
be some sort of constraint or some sort of, I think,
recognition of the importance of this that might, might come
out of this.
S1 (20:50):
And Andrew, I guess just to wrap up, I'm really
wondering where these latest actions in the Caribbean, these boat
strikes where they could lead, you know, do they point
to any particularly worrying consequences, whether it's practical ones in
terms of how American military personnel might be treated by
other countries, or perhaps, I don't know, political consequences that
might come from this.
S2 (21:11):
Yeah, it's a great question. And the answer is yes.
And we hope that the consequences won't carry forward too much.
We hope that this this will remain a more of
a constrained event. And we won't see broader implications that
could have greater implications for the military, US military or
those who serve in it, in it most directly, of course,
(21:34):
that there is the potential, at least in theory, that
these actions open up US military personnel to potential prosecutions
for some of these events. I think more broadly, there's
there's bigger potential issues for the military. Um, of course,
very directly that that we're already seeing that, um, the
(21:54):
partnership from our partners and allies are starting to be limited,
at least in the region. So there are reports that
our allies, NATO allies, are limiting some of their, um,
sharing of intelligence information and partnership with those forces operating
in that area. Um, and rightfully so. I think, uh,
going forward, we could see more of that happening, more daylight, uh,
(22:15):
occurring between US forces and, and its partners and allies. Um,
and for me, what what really is concerning is, is that, uh,
deeper ethical drift that can take place, um, if it
is so easy to, to see this happen in such
a short period of time, relatively speaking, within the US military,
if we see senior commanders following these orders and implementing
(22:36):
these orders, if we're seeing, um, judge advocates, legal experts
being sidelined or complicit in these, and again, they're being told, uh,
in a lot of ways from the interpretation from the
white House, that the white House has concluded that these
are lawful strikes. So it's now very difficult for for
members of the military to argue that they are, um,
(22:57):
are are following an unlawful order because they're being given
the guidance that this is a lawful order and to
not follow that is now prosecutable under the UCMJ, the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is the controlling law
for US military members. So it speaks to a number
of very deep problems, ethically and legally within the military. Um,
(23:18):
I'm hopeful that, um, that we will see an ending
of this, um, sooner rather than later. And I think
there's a lot of hard questions that those currently in
the military, those who have served in the past, will
begin to need to start asking themselves about how this
has come to take place and what needs to be
done in the future to to prevent a similar campaign.
S1 (23:38):
Wow. It's such an important space to be delving into.
So thank you so much, Andrew, for your time.
S2 (23:46):
Thank you very much.
S1 (24:00):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by myself
and Kai Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our
head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is
a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.
If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism,
subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to
support what we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au. Subscribe
(24:27):
and sign up for our newsletter to receive a comprehensive
summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights
in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes.
I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks
for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Seelinger Morris. It's Monday,
December 15th. The video is, according to those who've seen it,
horrific to watch two sailors cling to bits of their
(00:21):
blown up boat in the Caribbean when they're killed by
a US military strike. This only after the first strike
on their boat failed to kill everybody on board. It
has sparked outrage and led to accusations by Democrat and
Republican lawmakers alike that the US secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth,
(00:42):
has presided over a military mission that may have been
marked by war crimes. Today, Andrew Bell, an expert on
law and ethics in military operations and a senior research
scholar at the center for International Security and Conflict at
Stanford University on why Donald Trump has ordered multiple boat
strikes in the Caribbean, which have killed at least 80 people,
(01:04):
and whether this could splinter the MAGA movement. Hello, Andrew,
and welcome to the Morning Edition.
S2 (01:15):
Thanks. It's good to be here.
S1 (01:16):
So first off, I guess, what was your reaction when
you first heard reports about this latest American military strike
on a boat allegedly carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela?
S2 (01:26):
It's, uh, it's been it's been very troubling, I have
to say.
S3 (01:30):
President Trump announced late today that the United States has
sunk a boat after it left Venezuela, carrying.
S4 (01:36):
Confirmed that the U.S. launched a strike in the southern
Caribbean against a Venezuelan vessel that was allegedly carrying drugs.
S5 (01:43):
The Trump administration is not backing down on its strategy
of lethal, but legally questionable strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels.
Even amid all the scrutiny surrounding the double tap strike
on a boat back in September with some lawmakers.
S6 (01:58):
Venezuela has been very bad, both in terms of drugs
and sending some of the worst criminals anywhere in the
world into our country.
S2 (02:06):
So, of course, there's significant legal implications. There are moral
ethical implications. But for me, I think on a more
personal level as well, the tie to the US military,
I have some US military service in my background as well,
and it is very troubling to see this play out
and to play out as long as it has. So
it's very important to to have these conversations about what
exactly is happening and what the next steps may be.
S1 (02:30):
Okay, we're going to get into all of the implications
in just a moment, and why it's become such a
lightning rod for both Democrats and Republicans alike. But can
you tell me why has Donald Trump actually been ordering
these strikes to begin with?
S2 (02:42):
Yeah. So I think the clearest answer is, is essentially
what he signaled when he was elected. He wanted to
pursue an America first policy. He has definitely signaled throughout
most of his time in politics that he's not going
to be constrained by anything resembling ethics or law or
any kind of constraints on what he thinks is his
power to conduct policy. And so I think if you
(03:05):
if you take these into combination together, he is going
to pursue an anti-drug campaign to ostensibly protect America by
any means that he can or that he can get
away with it should be noted that the purpose of
the strikes is ostensibly a good one, that we do
want to protect the United States from drugs infiltrating our borders,
(03:29):
that they do cause a lot of harm for our citizens. Uh,
the question, of course, is that when we're talking about
an anti-drug campaign to protect Americans and drugs flooding into America. Uh,
he seems to be raising a lot of questions because
at the same time that he's committing these strikes or
this campaign, he's also turning around and issuing pardons for
(03:50):
the Honduran former leader, who was convicted of major drug
operations against the United States.
S7 (03:55):
Uh, the people of Honduras really thought he was set up,
and it was a terrible thing. He was the president
of the country, and they basically said he was a
drug dealer because he was the president of the country.
S2 (04:06):
So it's it's hard to know exactly where his true
initiative lies. But I think essentially it does lie somewhere
in the realm of he's going to try to use
force as much as he can. He's going to direct
it against those he sees as adversaries. And and there's
not going to be much that the law or ethics
has to say in trying to trying to constrain that.
S8 (04:24):
Okay. Well, let's get into.
S1 (04:25):
One of the major questions here, which is do these
strikes because there's been a number of them, do they
actually breach the rule of law? Because I know that
I've been watching them as a layperson. I see the
United States military attacking a Venezuelan boat. This is the
last one in particular, though no one on that boat
has been convicted by a U.S. court of smuggling drugs
into the country, as I understand it. And the United
(04:46):
States and Venezuela are not actually at war. And I
think is that legal?
S2 (04:53):
Right. So there are a number of legal issues that
are that are tied up in this, and it gets
a little bit complex, but essentially when you get down
to it, the legal issues, after you peel them back
a little bit, they're actually they're actually pretty clear. Um,
and this is one of the more frustrating things about
watching this play out in the US military and by
the administration. So essentially, we are talking about unlawful actions,
(05:14):
pretty starkly unlawful actions, and in a number of different
realms of law. So, um, all these coming together paints
a strong picture of a sense of, of, of quite, um,
grand impunity or perceived impunity by, uh, the president, perhaps
the most, most clear way to, to, to frame it is, um,
despite the fact that there's been a lot of discussion
about the laws of war, about war crimes, or is
(05:37):
this is this legal in law? Um, really a lot
of that is a bit of a is a bit
of a smokescreen or a bit of confusion around the
essential fact that what we're talking about is extrajudicial killing.
So war and war crimes and the laws of war
obviously apply during war. During war time. They're designed essentially
for a number of reasons. one to protect civilians and
(05:58):
limit harm to civilians. But the flip side is actually
they're designed to protect soldiers. And the design was actually
they were designed more to protect soldiers before this idea
that we should also protect civilians came into a global
norm in the, in the, in the 20th century or so. Essentially,
the idea was we know soldiers are going to fight.
We know they're going to commit killing during wartime. We
(06:19):
don't think that they should be prosecuted and sent to
jail for committing these actions on behalf of their state.
We don't want to send soldiers abroad to do what
we asked them to do, and then have them come
home and be prosecuted for killing, because killing generally is
an unlawful act. And so there's a special carve out
called the Combatants Privilege, which allows soldiers to engage in
war and not be prosecuted for it as long as
(06:41):
it's done in a lawful manner and against other combatants.
We don't want them killing civilians if they can avoid it. Well,
the critical point about that is this is all pertains
to wartime. So we allow this broad exception to occur
for soldiers during wartime. We don't want soldiers killing civilians
or other people outside of war, because the other name
for that essentially is extrajudicial killing or murder. And what
(07:03):
we have here is essentially a case where there's almost
no evidence whatsoever that there's a war that's occurring or
anything that would conceivably be categorized as a war happening
between the United States and the drug gangs that that
the president is directing these targeted strikes against. So essentially,
just looking in pure terms of the actual strikes themselves,
(07:26):
the killing that's happening, this is a tantamount to it's
a strong word, but there's really no other legal way
to describe it as murder being committed by the US
military on behalf of or on the orders of the administration,
the Secretary of Defense, and even those who flow down
the chain of command.
S1 (07:44):
Okay. Wow. So if I understand correctly, you're saying this
appears to be state sanctioned murder. So has Donald Trump
or the administration just outright lied? Because we know that
the administration has, I think, been justifying these attacks on
these boats over the last couple of months by saying
that the US is in an armed conflict with, quote unquote,
narco terrorists, unquote, trying to kill Americans. Uh, you know,
(08:08):
which the administration argues permits the use of lethal force.
So is that just an out and out lie?
S2 (08:15):
Well, so there's been this tradition of US presidents, um,
the US government, US presidents, different executives over the past
half century or so to continually push the envelope in
various ways about using force and using executive power. Uh,
and in this sense, the Trump administration is very much
continuing this line of, of action. Um, and so I
(08:35):
don't want to necessarily focus only on this administration in
the sense of increasing reliance on military power in ways
that are potentially expanding the interpretation of laws of war
or US domestic law. But what we have here that's
different is that the administration is making the case that
(08:56):
the laws of war apply. That there's a war that's
happening between the US and these drug gangs in a
situation where their evidence points completely against that interpretation. There's
virtually no evidence whatsoever that there's some sort of war
state or a military action or combat operations happening between
(09:19):
the US and the US military and these these drug
gangs and these drug drug traffickers. Now, it's been kind
of hard to to disentangle or to pull out the
administration's justification for this. So sometime late in October, the
administration did issue a letter to Congress that reportedly was
outlining the legal justifications and attempting to paint a picture
(09:42):
of of a legal situation that would permit the use
of force, assuming that this was some sort of campaign
during combat operations or during during a conflict. And in
doing so, I think the administration was trying to draw
upon this history that the US has had over the
past 20 years in the gwot post-war era of using
drone strikes, of targeting individuals in campaigns against terrorist groups
(10:07):
or insurgent groups. Campaigns in Africa and Yemen, Iraq and
Afghanistan and Pakistan, of course. And so the administration is
trying to, I think, put this current situation in the
same category as that, that we're just committing drone strikes.
And and I think in some ways, they're hoping that
the American public will just sort of see this all
(10:27):
as part and parcel of the same thing that the
US has been doing over the past 20 years. We've
unfortunately become somewhat inured, inured to using drone strikes and
military force around the world against against individuals and different
non-state groups. And for what it's worth, on the face
of it, that that sounds kind of similar if you're
if you're not thinking about these too deeply. And I
(10:49):
think many in the American populace have sort of taken
that that attitude because it's hard to understand. And there's,
you know, because of the legal issues that could be involved.
But most clearly, the biggest difference, again, as I mentioned,
is that when you don't have an actual state of
war or some sort of, uh, intensity of combat operations
(11:11):
happening between the US and a non-state armed group such
as these, these drug groups, then you don't have you
don't have a war, you don't have a state of war.
And if you don't have a state of war, then
you don't have the law of armed conflict or the
laws of war. And if you don't have the laws
of war, then you don't have these various, uh, privileges
or exceptions that allow you to, to use military force
against individuals. And so I'll just say is that, uh,
(11:35):
I think the administration is trying desperately to paint this picture.
They're trying to put these different legal pieces together from
what we understand in the reporting. They're trying to paint
this as, um, the drug groups, as an organized armed group.
And there are different requirements for that under international law.
I think they're trying to make the argument that these
drugs are somehow an attack on American citizens, that somehow
(11:56):
American citizens will die because of these drugs, and therefore
that equates to an attack that these drugs are war
sustaining material, which there's a there's some, you know, some
exceptions or some categories in international law for you to
be able to attack those or maybe military objectives. But um,
but again, it's, it's, you know, apart from all these
legal interpretations and maneuvers that the administration is trying to make,
(12:17):
it essentially goes back to the idea of, do you
have any evidence that there is a war happening between, uh,
these drug cartels and and unfortunately, uh, I think the
silence is deafening. We do not see any, any evidence
put forward at all by the administration. And I think
that that in a lot of ways tells us what
we need to understand about the true characterization of this,
of this campaign.
S1 (12:37):
We know that this strike on September 2nd is really
horrified people. The president of Colombia has said that it
constitutes a crime against humanity. So can you briefly walk
us through this September 2nd strike and in particular the
second strike, and why it's been so chilling for so
many people?
S2 (12:55):
Sure. So I think the exact circumstances and the facts
from that case are still not completely clear. And there's
ongoing investigation and reporting. That's, I think, trying to uncover
a little bit more as to what happened during that event.
As best as we can tell at this time from
the reporting. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of defense, did issue
orders on behalf of President Trump to start this campaign
(13:17):
of strikes against drug vessels in the Caribbean at the
time and with the order to not necessarily to to
leave no quarter, but that to kill all the sailors
on board. So it's a somewhat a slight differentiation in meaning,
but essentially they're all it gets to the similar point
of they wanted to ensure that the sailors on those
(13:40):
ships were, were struck and killed, that the ships themselves
would be sunk and the drugs would be, would then
be lost at sea. So the reporting, from what we
can tell so far has been that the military was
tracking a drug vessel engaged in one of these these
drug transit routes. After some time of tracking it, the
order was given by Secretary Hegseth, flowing through through the
(14:02):
admiral in charge of the task force at the time,
the JSOC task force to commit the strike. And from
what we understand, it was about a 40 minute time
period or so that this ship was in distress, that
the sailors were there trying to survive that situation, at
which point Second Strike was then called on the ship.
S9 (14:22):
We're learning more details on the controversial double tap strike
that killed survivors on an alleged drug boat near Venezuela.
S10 (14:29):
Exclusive Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will be on Capitol Hill
this afternoon. He's briefing the group of top lawmakers known
as the Gang of Eight, on a lethal attack on
a suspected drug boat that some are calling a war crime.
The early September.
S2 (14:42):
It's notable that at that time, there were not orders
given to the military forces on site or in conducting
the strike as to what what they should do if
there were survivors that that just had not been under
consideration as part of the initial plans. Interestingly, later, later
strikes did then take this this eventuality into into account
so that they did have resources on hand to rescue
(15:05):
those sailors and then to repatriate them to, to, to
their home nation or to wherever. So essentially, um, the,
the laws were being or the directives were being done
on the fly, in a sense, as they understood the
implications of what was happening as part of this military campaign.
S1 (15:23):
We'll be right back. And so, part of the horror,
I guess, that people have expressed in responding to these
reports is that the video of the attack, as I
understand it, suggests that the two remaining surviving sailors who
(15:46):
weren't killed in the first strike, that they were just
holding on to remains of their boat. Right. That contrary
to the administration's claims that these two survivors had radioed
for backup and they were therefore about to re-enter combat
and I guess, be in a position to harm American
citizens by somehow getting the drugs to shore. That's the problem, right?
That the video would suggest quite the opposite, that actually
(16:07):
these two people were possibly very close to slipping into
the ocean holding, you know, from holding onto the debris.
S2 (16:15):
Yes, absolutely. And of course, we still don't. We haven't
seen the the public video. So we don't know exactly
what the status was. And there's different interpretations by different
members of Congress as to what exactly was happening. But
essentially the argument that's being put forward by by some Republicans,
Senator Cotton being one of them, that somehow they were
trying to, quote unquote, get back in the fight or
(16:37):
radio for help, for assistance from other drug members. It's it's, uh,
it's a bit of smoke and mirrors because essentially what
you have is, is a ship shipwrecked? Uh, crew. They're
they're in the water. The vessel is burning. They're clearly
in distress. Um, at which point all the obligations under
international law and us US law then kick in, and
that you're supposed to provide assistance to them. So the
(16:58):
fact that at that point, someone in the chain of
command then authorized yet another strike is extremely troubling, extremely problematic,
and I think just speaks more generally to the very
severe issues regarding legal constraints and the legal advice and
the involvement of the legal institutions in the US military
(17:20):
in providing guidance to the to US military operational forces
on the employment of force. This essentially should not be happening. Um,
and those who have served in positions of judge advocates
or jags in the US military on the whole, have
been pretty, pretty well horrified to watch and see what
what has been happening. Uh, there's been a story, I think,
(17:42):
a justifiable one that the military has told itself in
a lot of ways in the post-Vietnam era, which is
that military has generally adopted very strong norms regarding lawful
use of force. Ethical employment of combat combat forces, an
attempt to try to be on the right side of history,
to earn that legitimacy that the military has earned over
(18:03):
the past half century or so, and justifiably so. Um,
and to to see this play out in the way
that it has, I think, has shattered a lot of
illusions that that the military has had about how strong
those norms are and how much it is able to
defend itself against the political pressures that could be coming
from political actors above that may not have those ideals
(18:24):
at heart.
S1 (18:25):
And there's been some notable Republicans, right, who have really
spoken out against this. I know that Senator Rand Paul,
he accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of either lying in
his public response to news reports about the strike, and
he has co-sponsored resolutions to block unauthorized military action in
the Caribbean and Venezuela. And we know that, again, Republican
(18:46):
Senator Thom Tillis, he told CNN that whoever was responsible
for ordering the second boat strike needs to be held accountable,
saying you don't have to have served in the military
to understand that that was a violation of ethical, moral
and legal code. So are we seeing a splintering of
the MAGA movement, do you think, or is that is
it to too strong to say that, or are we
(19:08):
witnessing something of a turning point?
S2 (19:11):
Yeah, it's a it's a really good question. And I
think we'll we'll see. I think we've been to a
point before where it seemed as if President Trump was
at his nadir and, and maybe had lost his, his, uh,
the opportunity to, to be part of politics and, and
the wake of the January 6th, uh, events and, um,
only to see him come roaring back and, uh, regain
(19:32):
the enthusiasm of MAGA base and come to power. So
I think we are seeing a bit of a splintering, uh,
there certainly there's some daylight that we haven't seen in
the prior months. Um, but I, I'm hesitant to say
that there'll be any long term consequences for the president
himself that comes out of this. I think the strongest, uh,
(19:53):
perhaps constraint that or greatest reaction we might see at
some point if this does develop into a true scandal
legally and politically, is that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
would be asked to step down. I have a hard
time really seeing that because Trump is very, very keen
on loyalty and loyalty among his staff. And it's important
(20:15):
to remember that the secretary defense secretary is there precisely
because of his lack of experience, of his lack of
of authority and knowledge on these issues. The characteristics that
may put him there are the ones that have led
to this kind of event. And it really goes to
show why that position is so important. You know, perhaps
the number two most powerful position in the world. And
(20:37):
and we'll see where it goes from here. So it
just depends on the nature of the Republicans in Congress and,
and the American people. And we'll hope that there will
be some sort of constraint or some sort of, I think,
recognition of the importance of this that might, might come
out of this.
S1 (20:50):
And Andrew, I guess just to wrap up, I'm really
wondering where these latest actions in the Caribbean, these boat
strikes where they could lead, you know, do they point
to any particularly worrying consequences, whether it's practical ones in
terms of how American military personnel might be treated by
other countries, or perhaps, I don't know, political consequences that
might come from this.
S2 (21:11):
Yeah, it's a great question. And the answer is yes.
And we hope that the consequences won't carry forward too much.
We hope that this this will remain a more of
a constrained event. And we won't see broader implications that
could have greater implications for the military, US military or
those who serve in it, in it most directly, of course,
(21:34):
that there is the potential, at least in theory, that
these actions open up US military personnel to potential prosecutions
for some of these events. I think more broadly, there's
there's bigger potential issues for the military. Um, of course,
very directly that that we're already seeing that, um, the
(21:54):
partnership from our partners and allies are starting to be limited,
at least in the region. So there are reports that
our allies, NATO allies, are limiting some of their, um,
sharing of intelligence information and partnership with those forces operating
in that area. Um, and rightfully so. I think, uh,
going forward, we could see more of that happening, more daylight, uh,
(22:15):
occurring between US forces and, and its partners and allies. Um,
and for me, what what really is concerning is, is that, uh,
deeper ethical drift that can take place, um, if it
is so easy to, to see this happen in such
a short period of time, relatively speaking, within the US military,
if we see senior commanders following these orders and implementing
(22:36):
these orders, if we're seeing, um, judge advocates, legal experts
being sidelined or complicit in these, and again, they're being told, uh,
in a lot of ways from the interpretation from the
white House, that the white House has concluded that these
are lawful strikes. So it's now very difficult for for
members of the military to argue that they are, um,
(22:57):
are are following an unlawful order because they're being given
the guidance that this is a lawful order and to
not follow that is now prosecutable under the UCMJ, the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is the controlling law
for US military members. So it speaks to a number
of very deep problems, ethically and legally within the military. Um,
(23:18):
I'm hopeful that, um, that we will see an ending
of this, um, sooner rather than later. And I think
there's a lot of hard questions that those currently in
the military, those who have served in the past, will
begin to need to start asking themselves about how this
has come to take place and what needs to be
done in the future to to prevent a similar campaign.
S1 (23:38):
Wow. It's such an important space to be delving into.
So thank you so much, Andrew, for your time.
S2 (23:46):
Thank you very much.
S1 (24:00):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by myself
and Kai Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our
head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is
a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.
If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism,
subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to
support what we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au. Subscribe
(24:27):
and sign up for our newsletter to receive a comprehensive
summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights
in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes.
I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks
for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.