Pete Hegseth's Key Argument for Boat Strike Survivors Has Crumbled

The Department of Defenses choice to eliminate two survivors of a boat bombing in the Caribbeana move that could constitute a war crimewas reportedly part of a contingency plan approved by Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to The New York Times. The plan allegedly allowed rescuing survivors but instructed that they be killed if they attempted to contact a cartel member.

The Pentagon claims the men killed on September 2 fit this scenario, triggering the second stage of the plan. The White House maintains the actions were justified, citing suspicions that the boats were transporting narcotics from Venezuela and Colombia to the U.S. However, no evidence has been presented confirming the men made contact with a cartel or were involved in drug trafficking.

Hegseth has sought to deflect responsibility for the second strike, the potentially criminal act, onto Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley. I didnt stick around [after the first strike], Hegseth told reporters during a recent cabinet meeting with Donald Trump. A few hours later, I learned that Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to sink the boat and neutralize the threat. It was the right call, and we support him.

Despite Hegseth distancing himself, he did not mention that he had approved the contingency plan that Bradley later executed. The incident has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. This constitutes a war crime. Ordering survivorswho should be rescued by lawto be killed has no legal justification, said Newsmax host Judge Andrew Napolitano, Hegseths colleague, on Tuesday. All involved, from the defense secretary to the admiral to those who carried out the strike, should face prosecution for the murder of these two individuals.

Admiral Bradley is scheduled to meet with members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Thursday to clarify the events surrounding the strike.

Author: Ethan Caldwell