Hegseth’s incriminating statements on violating the law of war
Posted by John Reed on
Todays William Galston column in the Wall Street Journal is titled “The Example Pete Hegseth Sets.” That is a wimpy-ass title for a column that is about Hegseth’s crystal-clear, long-term rejection of, and refusal to comply with, the law of war. And he has acted on that rejection and refusal. That is a criminal violation of law not to mention his oath of office.
.
Galston recites the record:
.
• In 2005, in Iraq, Hegseth and his infantry platoon got a briefing from a JAG on the rules of engagement. Hegseth ordered his platoon to ignore the briefing. The column does not state whether Hegseth and/or his platoon acted on those orders and violated the US law of war. https://media.defense.gov/.../DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE...
• In his 2004 book The War On Soldiers Hegseth said the US
law of war was bulls•••.
• As a Fox News personality, he defended soldiers who were being prosecuted or who were convicted for war crimes. If his defense of the prosecuted were based on the facts of the cases, fine. But his objections were apparently based solely on the law itself being invalid. It will be invalid when Congress, the president and the international law authorities repeal; not when a TV personality spouts John Rambo macho bloodlust.
• In November 2024, while still a Fox News personality said, “All they do is take one incident and yell war criminal.” Uh, does the law of war say you have to violate it TWO OR MORE TIMES to be guilty? Nope.
• After being confirmed, Hegseth fired the Army, Air Force and Navy JAGs because they were “roadblocks to orders by a commander in chief.” The roadblock to orders given by commander in chief or any other officer of NCO in the chain of command is the word legal in the oath that all US military take on day one. They must obey only lawful or legal orders. After WW II ended, Nazi officers argued they did what they did because an order is an order, The Nuremberg trial judges rejected that defense. Hegseth is back to citing the Nazi officers’ defense. Many claim Trump is a Nazi. I do not believe that. But it is 100% sure that his statement about the orders of a commander in chief matches the rejected Nazi Nuremberg defense.
• In September 2025, Hegseth said, “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically correct.” This is violate the troops’ oath of office.
• That month, Hegseth also famously called all US military officers from around the world to the Pentagon where he told them they should no longer be ruled by “stupid...politically correct...overbearing” rules of engagement that overly restrict. He directed the audience of officers and NCOs to apply “common sense, maximum lethality and authority for war fighters.”
.
Galston says “...it is far from clear whether it’s legally appropriate to use the weapons of war against drug smugglers.” I have said that same thing. Furthermore, it is not just the “weapons” of war. It is also the notion that one human being can kill or harm another human solely because he is a member of an opposing armed force and has not surrendered. True of real war; NOT of activities where politicians have used the word “war” in spite of its obvious exaggeration to win political support like the “war on cancer” or the “war on poverty” or the “war on drugs.” The use of the politician metaphor or exaggeration “war on cancer” did not authorize anyone to shoot cigarette sellers on sight.
.
Also, I note that Hegseth’s license to kill only applies to Central or South American drug traffickers, not to U.S. residents or Canadians who also are part of drug trafficking into or within the U.S. So these are racist murders.
.
Galston rightly recites an on-point St. Augustine quote which I never heard before:
.
“The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance and the lust for power.”
.
My version of that is Hegseth and his supporters are insecure about their manhood and have a bloodlust that they are wearing on their chest in pursuit of warrior glory.
.
Hegseth has, with the many in-violation-of-US-and-international-law statements above written his prosecutor’s opening and closing statements. And Hegseth has ACTED on these illegal immoral beliefs and murdered approaching a hundred persons who maybe drug smugglers but who fit only a politician’s metaphorical definition of “war.”
.
A reader of mine said:
.
.
A reader of mine said:
.
I recommend to you some of the writings by Dr. Brian L. Cox on this topic. He is a Cornell University Law Professor who specializes in LOAC, and he thoroughly explains why these drug traffickers are not a protected class under LOAC. He certainly has a better understanding of these issues than I had and a far better grasp of the intricacies of the situation than reporters and politicians I’ve seen weighing in.
His bio:
While in the military, Prof. Cox served as an airborne infantry soldier, airborne infantry officer, and for seven years as an Army judge advocate. His combat deployments include Iraq from 2003-2004 and Afghanistan from 2013-2014 as an operational law advisor and then chief of international and operational law. Prof. Cox also served as a military prosecutor, federal prosecutor, brigade judge advocate, administrative law attorney, legal assistance attorney, and military magistrate while he was a judge advocate.
.
My response to the reader is this:
.
.
My response to the reader is this:
.
I did not say they are a protected class under the law of war. There is no war. If this were an actual war, not drug smuggling they would be protected by the law of war if they were hors do Combat protected.
.
You make the colossal mistake of saying drug smugglers are LESS protected than soldiers in an actual WW II type of war. That’s ridiculous. Drug smugglers are FAR more protected than enemy soldiers. In the US they are protected by the U.S. Constitution including the Bill of Rights if U.S. jurisdiction applies and international law outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
.
The analog is not the law of war to which I link above. Rather, it is the rules that the United States Coast Guard has long abided by regarding drug smugglers. I have seen multiple TV documentaries that show the USCG in action against drug smugglers. They chase them down and arrest them and board their water craft and arrest them and hand them over to some legal authority. Since what is going on now in Hegseth’s “war on narco trafficker” is really the same as the USCG’s drug interdiction before Hegseth’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense.
.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is not part of the Department of War (now the Department of Defense), but it is a military branch under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during peacetime, and it can be transferred to the Department of the Navy (part of DoD) during wartime, acting as part of the joint force.
.
In fact, Hegseth elbowed the USCG aside regarding drug smuggling because they were too law abiding and not “lethal” enough. The US military does NOT have a 007 MI 6 James Bond license to kill. Hegseth thinks he does. He needs to be fired and prosecuted.
.
Trump is arguably culpable for nominating him, and continuing to employ him and for post facto approval of the issuing and carrying out of these murder orders.
Share this post
0 comment