video screenshot

 

US legislators are seeking explanations from the Trump administration following allegations of unlawful military actions against Venezuelan boats. The reports claim a follow-up strike was ordered by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to target survivors of an initial attack, sparking legal concerns.

 

A report from The Washington Post detailed the events of 2 September, when a US military strike on a Venezuelan boat allegedly left two survivors. It’s claimed that a second strike was later ordered to "kill everybody" aboard, as per Hegseth's instructions. Republican-led committees overseeing the Pentagon have committed to "vigorous oversight" of the matter.

 

Hegseth condemned the accusations as "fake news" in a post, defending the actions as legal under both US and international laws. President Donald Trump offered his support, stating his belief in Hegseth's denial of the reported orders. However, Trump also indicated the administration would scrutinise the claims, saying he wouldn’t endorse a second strike.

 

The Venezuelan National Assembly has responded by pledging a "rigorous and thorough investigation" into these serious allegations. The Venezuelan government has accused the US of seeking to incite regional tensions for political motives. Trump recently acknowledged a conversation with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, though he declined to comment on the nature of their discussion.

 

The legality of the strikes is complicated by the US's non-signatory status to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which impacts international legal standings. This law strictly regulates intervention in international waters, except in situations such as "hot pursuit". Expert opinions suggest non-lethal force as the preferable method for engaging such vessels, reported the BBC.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways

 

• Allegations of unlawful follow-up strike orders lead US lawmakers to seek answers.
• Hegseth and Trump refute claims while promising a thorough review.
• Venezuela announces an investigation into the alleged actions.
   

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-12-02

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, webfact said:

Hegseth condemned the accusations as "fake news" in a post, defending the actions as legal under both US and international laws.

And this is the crux of the matter. Was it legal under both US and international laws? The big picture of course isn't the drug runners it's regime change. Fair chance that the 70% that voted the dictator out in the last election want this.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

It’s claimed that a second strike was later ordered to "kill everybody" aboard, as per Hegseth's instructions.

It's "claimed". There is no evidence of this so it's pure speculation. If anyone on here can post video, audio or written evidence of him ordering the double tap then please post it.

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

It's "claimed". There is no evidence of this so it's pure speculation. If anyone on here can post video, audio or written evidence of him ordering the double tap then please post it.

 

I would think that the republican controlled congress knows a bit more than a MAGA pensioner on an Asean forum

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

 

I would think that the republican controlled congress knows a bit more than a MAGA pensioner on an Asean forum

No evidence of ordering a double tap has been presented. If you know different please detail it.

The clownish defence of Hegseth has began and they are throwing Admiral Bradley under the bus. Press propagandist Karoline Leavitt repeatedly state that it was legal and then proceed with more amateurish defence that Hegseth was unaware that it happened. Now they the blame game begin that Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strickes. Followed by Hegseth on social media praising Admiral Mitch Bradley as a American hero and has his 100% support in his combat decision. The hook is set for Bradely to take the rap. It wouldn't work as most can see through this flimsy set-up to deflect blame. Hegseth is in deep doo-doo and may entangle Trump in war crime accusations. 

 

Pistol Pete doesn't have to order a "double tap" if his basic order is to kill the so called 'narco terrorists'....and even tho US didn't sign on to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it would still be expected to conform to the rules. Nazis never signed up for Nuremburg trials, Serbia for trials at the Hague. 

 If the navy/coast guard is close enough to pick up survivors, etc... they are close enough to take prisoners... shots across the bows and all that. Admin just tries to show what tough guys they are with total BS excuses to kill non combatants and topple a government they don't like (with oil bonus). Nothing to do with drug running, considering Trump's pardon of convicted ex president who took bribes from El Chapo and help traffic tons of coke into USA. Absurd claim by Trump that each boat load kills 25,000 Americans. Total BS. 

US has no death penalty for drug trafficking. Either a war crime or murder trials for Pete et al. Please hold trials at the Hague so Trump can't pardon him like all his other arch felon friends

21 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The clownish defence of Hegseth has began and they are throwing Admiral Bradley under the bus. Press propagandist Karoline Leavitt repeatedly state that it was legal and then proceed with more amateurish defence that Hegseth was unaware that it happened. Now they the blame game begin that Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strickes. Followed by Hegseth on social media praising Admiral Mitch Bradley as a American hero and has his 100% support in his combat decision. The hook is set for Bradely to take the rap. It wouldn't work as most can see through this flimsy set-up to deflect blame. Hegseth is in deep doo-doo and may entangle Trump in war crime accusations. 

 

Trickle down economics didn't work, so now they are trying trickle down accountability!

On 12/2/2025 at 6:56 AM, dinsdale said:

And this is the crux of the matter. Was it legal under both US and international laws? The big picture of course isn't the drug runners it's regime change. Fair chance that the 70% that voted the dictator out in the last election want this.

🤔 regime change? That always ends well for America.

On 12/2/2025 at 7:55 AM, dinsdale said:

It's "claimed". There is no evidence of this so it's pure speculation. If anyone on here can post video, audio or written evidence of him ordering the double tap then please post it.

From Hegseth's X feed.  If the 'alleged' narco terrorists were carrying guns, please provide proof of that.

Hegseth demonstrates clear evidence of military incompetence as he misses out the fact that the RPG also has a back blast that would be slightly prejudicial to the helicopter and all inside it.

 

What "american and internstional laws" say its legal to kill defenseless people swimming in the sea.

Its on accurate same levels as japanese did to allied seamen, sailors and soldiers during ww2, and that wasnt "directly popular"!

The period of deflection and throwing well-intentioned people under the bus is beginning yet again for Trump, and his pathetic underling Hesgeth, who is in so far over his head and has been from the beginning. 

 

Republican Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of either lying in his public response to news reports that the US military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug boat in September or being incompetent.

 

Secretary Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this, and it did not happen. It was fake news. It didn’t happen. And then the next day, from the podium at the White House are saying it did happen,” Paul told reporters in the US Capitol. “So, either he was lying to us … or he’s incompetent and didn’t know it had happened.”

 

Do we think there’s any chance that … the secretary of the defense did not know there had been a second strike? So as a country, we’re just going to let people lie to us, to our face?” he added. Paul, who has cosponsored resolutions to block unauthorized military action in the Caribbean and in Venezuela, added that it seemed like Hegseth is trying to “pin the blame” on Bradley. “I don’t like to see political figures pointing their finger at military figures. Military people take orders. And there’s a question about, you know, when they don’t take orders, whether things are legal or not legal, but in this sense, it looks to me like they’re trying to pin the blame on somebody else and not them,” Paul said.

 

Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly also expressed concern about the White House placing the blame on Bradley. “How about that for leadership?” said Kelly. “Throw the people underneath you under the bus.”

 

“This is the kind of thing that happens when you have a president who says we’re going to go out and kill people. It’s not what presidents normally say,” said Kelly. “And when you have an unqualified secretary of defense, a guy who has basically zero qualifications for this job that runs around on a stage you know, talking about lethality and warrior ethos and killing people, and we’re going to hunt and kill people.”

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/02/politics/rand-paul-hegseth-boat-strike?cid=android_app

23 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The clownish defence of Hegseth has began and they are throwing Admiral Bradley under the bus. Press propagandist Karoline Leavitt repeatedly state that it was legal and then proceed with more amateurish defence that Hegseth was unaware that it happened. Now they the blame game begin that Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strickes. Followed by Hegseth on social media praising Admiral Mitch Bradley as a American hero and has his 100% support in his combat decision. The hook is set for Bradely to take the rap. It wouldn't work as most can see through this flimsy set-up to deflect blame. Hegseth is in deep doo-doo and may entangle Trump in war crime accusations. 

 

Ultimately it will be the butlers fault.

If small boats and their civilian occupants can be destroyed without ANY evidence (let alone incontrevertible proof) of an alleged as-yet-to-be-committed crime, this opens the door to attacking naval vessels patrolling off the Venezuelan coast on suspicion they are there as part of an invasion force.

 

U.S. lives are wantonly being put at risk, in furtherance of either an illegal invasion or the threat of committing such a crime.

This is just my opinion but I don’t believe that a SOCOM Admiral would order a “double tap” to kill remaining civilians. What would be the rationale? Shoot a $150k hellfire missile into the boat again? The boat and supposed drugs are destroyed by missile #1 — it’s Donnie Fats doing anything he wants 

 

 Then you have Kegsbreath saying it was the “fog of war”  and he didn’t see civilians — has he ever been in one?  The Admiral has become the scapegoat and just like the SIGNAL incident,  Whiskeybreath will waltz away — again

 

sad state of affairs in the US
 

 

 

Once again the wacko dem supporters are using a lie to push their total BS,  no order to kill people was ordered, the first strike did not destroy the target(boat) so a second strike on the target was ordered as is always done by armed forces, dems are simply trying to push BS once again, the story originated as hearsay to a fake dem  news service

10 hours ago, Olav Seglem said:

What "american and internstional laws" say its legal to kill defenseless people swimming in the sea.

Its on accurate same levels as japanese did to allied seamen, sailors and soldiers during ww2, and that wasnt "directly popular"!

 

Don't have to go that far...........what "american and international laws" says its legal to sink civilian boats in international waters when not at war?

 

"I've got a memo" or "just following orders" doesn't cut it.

 

Well, not unless you're willing to grant Putin and Xi and the Mullahs and Kim the absolute right to bomb any boat on any body of water anywhere at any time if they claim "national security" reasons.

 

 

4 hours ago, ericbj said:

If small boats and their civilian occupants can be destroyed without ANY evidence (let alone incontrevertible proof) of an alleged as-yet-to-be-committed crime, this opens the door to attacking naval vessels patrolling off the Venezuelan coast on suspicion they are there as part of an invasion force.

 

U.S. lives are wantonly being put at risk, in furtherance of either an illegal invasion or the threat of committing such a crime.

 

It gets better.

 

For national security reasons, Putin can claim to be protecting critical infrastructure by bombing random boats sailing over the remaining undamaged portion of NS-2.  

 

No evidence required, it's enough that Lavrov claimed they had secret intelligence that is too secret to  reveal.  Trust them.

 

1 hour ago, Bigwave12 said:

This is just my opinion but I don’t believe that a SOCOM Admiral would order a “double tap” to kill remaining civilians. What would be the rationale?

 

Destroying any survivors can be rationalised on the grounds that it was necessary to prevent the public learning that the boat was not carrying drugs.

 

If survivors were in fact killed by a second strike, this tends to confirm the killers did not know what the purpose of the journey was.  This killing, like the others, was just a necessary ingredient in a bogus narrative.

 

Pre-meditated murder is murder, and the culprits must be tried.  The Nuremburg trials clearly established that obeying orders is no excuse.  Those that issue an order and those that execute it are guilty.

 

9 hours ago, seajae said:

Once again the wacko dem supporters are using a lie to push their total BS,  no order to kill people was ordered, the first strike did not destroy the target(boat) so a second strike on the target was ordered as is always done by armed forces, dems are simply trying to push BS once again, the story originated as hearsay to a fake dem  news service

Once again slurs and insults are thrown at people with a different point of view.

Trump himself said they would be killed.

The target was destroyed in the first strike and simply became floating wreckage and debris. All the 'evidence' of drugs was either destroyed or sunk by the first strike.

There was no wreckage that could endanger other vessels.

The boat and alleged drugs WERE destroyed by the first strike, the only other 'target' left were the survivors/witnesses.

8 hours ago, ericbj said:

 

Destroying any survivors can be rationalised on the grounds that it was necessary to prevent the public learning that the boat was not carrying drugs.

 

If survivors were in fact killed by a second strike, this tends to confirm the killers did not know what the purpose of the journey was.  This killing, like the others, was just a necessary ingredient in a bogus narrative.

 

Pre-meditated murder is murder, and the culprits must be tried.  The Nuremburg trials clearly established that obeying orders is no excuse.  Those that issue an order and those that execute it are guilty.

 

You really make a stretch out of this. 

First, why would the government or even the US Navy, attack and destroy a boat without justification or during wartime . The way you suggest it would mean we have cold blooded killers running the military and controlling the ships themselves as well as any other person participating in the event. Which is really the stretch in this. Are you too blind to see there was reason and justification for the actions? 

If your scenario was really true, then why isn't the US Navy blowing up every boat that passes there or is in those waters? 

2 hours ago, thesetat said:

You really make a stretch out of this. 

First, why would the government or even the US Navy, attack and destroy a boat without justification or during wartime . The way you suggest it would mean we have cold blooded killers running the military and controlling the ships themselves as well as any other person participating in the event. Which is really the stretch in this. Are you too blind to see there was reason and justification for the actions? 

If your scenario was really true, then why isn't the US Navy blowing up every boat that passes there or is in those waters? 

 

There is no convincing the simple-minded who have an unshakeable faith in Big-Daddy government.  They are the greatest threat to democracy and human rights.

 

If you were told that of fourteen CIA members chosen for training in torture techniques only one of them refused, on moral grounds, such a statement would be complete anathema to you.  You would doubtlessly reject out of hand the source, John Kiriakou, as a traitor, despite all evidence of his service to the U.S.

 

If the U.S. Navy blew up every boat which passed that would undermine the official  narrative.

 

There are clear issues here:

 

1.  Illegal actions; and

 

2.  Lack of evidence to support the supposed reason for the illegal killings of unidentified persons on the high seas.

 

 

4 minutes ago, ericbj said:

 

There is no convincing the simple-minded who have an unshakeable faith in Big-Daddy government.  They are the greatest threat to democracy and human rights.

 

If you were told that of fourteen CIA members chosen for training in torture techniques only one of them refused, on moral grounds, such a statement would be complete anathema to you.  You would doubtlessly reject out of hand the source, John Kiriakou, as a traitor, despite all evidence of his service to the U.S.

 

If the U.S. Navy blew up every boat which passed that would undermine the official  narrative.

 

There are clear issues here:

 

1.  Illegal actions; and

 

2.  Lack of evidence to support the supposed reason for the illegal killings of unidentified persons on the high seas.

 

 

I think you are mistaken. Surely they had some evidence to target the boats they did.  Perhaps it is not revealed as yet due to. a snitch or undercover operation you are also not aware of leading to the information. These are not random acts on random boats which clearly indicates some evidence they were actually smuggling narcotics at the time. 

Perhaps you are just blinded by some youtubers trying to gain likes and convinced what you hear is true... I am sure they also have some information how you can buy a home on the moon too... 

18 minutes ago, thesetat said:

I think you are mistaken. Surely they had some evidence to target the boats they did.  Perhaps it is not revealed as yet due to. a snitch or undercover operation you are also not aware of leading to the information. These are not random acts on random boats which clearly indicates some evidence they were actually smuggling narcotics at the time. 

Perhaps you are just blinded by some youtubers trying to gain likes and convinced what you hear is true... I am sure they also have some information how you can buy a home on the moon too... 

 

I feel under no obligation to respond to repetitive nonsense, beyond saying that if the U.S. Government has evidence to prove what they say they should produce it.

 

When someone accused of murder explains his reasons it does not exonerate him of the charge;  unless he can show it was either an accident or an essential act of self-defence.  Neither applies in this case.

The tin foil hat brigade are out in force with their total BS stories, this has already been de bunked as BS but the wacko dems cant let the truth come out, they have to continue the lie because otherwise they are shown up as the total idiots they are, they would rather believe made up lies rather than the truth that destroys their fake narratives

27 minutes ago, thesetat said:

I think you are mistaken. Surely they had some evidence to target the boats they did.  Perhaps it is not revealed as yet due to. a snitch or undercover operation you are also not aware of leading to the information. These are not random acts on random boats which clearly indicates some evidence they were actually smuggling narcotics at the time. 

Perhaps you are just blinded by some youtubers trying to gain likes and convinced what you hear is true... I am sure they also have some information how you can buy a home on the moon too... 

Sorry but it is difficult to follow your logic. If there are evidence, why don't the Trump's administration release them. The lethal strikes on small civilian boats were conducted since September. It was reported that there were 21 such operations and 83 deaths. The majority of Americans do not back the strikes without judiciary oversights. Even among Republicans, close to half don't support the strikes. Surely it is long overdue that they produce some evidence and quell the oppositions and quiet the dems? 

Thiis is the mentality of the current Sec of Def/War.  I never liked him from the first time I saw him on Fox and Friends. Yes he is or was a commissioned officer in the US Army Reserves and so was I. So were many others who were commssioned. He allegedly rose to the rank of Major.  He was at best in charge of 100 soldiers. Now he is in charge close to 2 million service members and civilians. Dealing with narco traffickers is a law enforcement mission and legal due process is necessary. Did someone in the Trump Administration recently see the movie "Clear and Present Dangers" which was written by the late Tom Clancy. The plot line of the movie and book have similiarities to what is happening now:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

Did someone in the Trump Administration recently see the movie "Clear and Present Dangers" which was written by the late Tom Clancy. The plot line of the movie and book have similiarities to what is happening now:

Well OT a bit but my favorite line from that movie. Jack - Harrison Ford:

 

[Jack in South America needs a helicopter]

Jack Ryan: I'm here to rent the Huey.
Helicopter owner: We don't rent it anymore, but it is for sale.
Jack Ryan: How much?
Helicopter owner: Two million dollars.
Jack Ryan: Uh, my pilot and I will have to take it for a test drive.
Helicopter owner: Of course, you just have to leave a deposit.
Jack Ryan: How much is that?
Helicopter owner: Two million dollars.

Venezuela Puts Pressure Where It Hurts — And Trump’s Circle Is In Meltdown

 

 

Trump seeks control of the world's largest oil reserves.  Venezuela's.

 

But surely the U.S. is today one of the world's largest oil producers ?
Yes, light sweet crude.

 

U.S. refineries cannot produce diesel with light sweet crude.
They need heavy sour crude.  Such as that from Venezuela.

Currently Venezuela, whose crude output has been crippled by years of sanctions, manages to sell oil to China and India, in return for yuan and Bitcoin.

 

The petrodollar era, which began in 1973 and guaranteed the exclusive use of US dollars for crude oil purchases, has ended.  This recreates instability for the dollar such as existed after Nixon's 1971 "temporary" renunciation of the currency's gold backing.  Which had been assured by the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944.

 

Trump seeks a vassal state that can supply heavy sour crude in return for dollars that are "printed into existence" out of thin air.  This could kill two birds with one stone, just as the petrodollar agreement did half a century ago.

 

Undoubtedly this might be a temporary answer to an impending economic crisis that risks toppling the Trump administration.  But the undiplomatic relations, that have existed for years with no sign of improvement, will not have put most Venezuelans in a very receptive frame of mind.

 

Moreover America' current difficulties may in part be attributed to past decades when imports have been paid for with Ponzi currency.  So questions arise as to whether continuing the scam will end well.  It may just be a case of kicking the can down the road.