The White House can deny it, the Pentagon can issue carefully lawyered statements, but the story will not die, because the image is too horrifying and too simple to forget.
A speedboat in the Caribbean, shattered and sinking, shipwrecked survivors clinging to floating wreckage, and an American order allegedly relayed down the chain of command that sounds less like national defense and more like a mob hit.
“Kill them all.”
According to a bombshell report, that is the phrase attributed to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a Trump loyalist elevated from cable news warrior to the man effectively running what he proudly calls the “Department of War,” not the Department of Defense.
The White House and Pentagon rushed to deny that Hegseth ever uttered those words, but their first move spoke louder than any press release, as they signaled that Admiral Mitch Bradley, the special operations commander, would be the one taking the fall.
Suddenly the admiral’s name appeared in official statements and Hegseth’s social posts, a convenient new villain introduced to a shocked public, as if the problem here were one rogue officer, not a chain of command soaked in reckless impunity.
Veterans watching this unfold are not buying it, and they are saying so in language that leaves no room for misinterpretation, calling the incident either an obvious war crime if there is a war, or outright murder if there is not.
Ken Harbaugh, a former Navy pilot, and veteran investigator Chris Goldsmith describe the September second strike as a “double tap” on men already blown out of their vessel, dazed and grabbing debris, which international law treats as protected survivors, not targets.
Goldsmith flatly rejects the Trump administration’s premise that America is “at war” in these waters, pointing out that the small boats being hit cannot even reach American shores, are not visibly armed, and pose no credible offensive threat justifying lethal military force.
Under long-standing practice, he explains, drug interdiction at sea is handled as law enforcement, usually with Coast Guard boarding operations, graduated use of force, and arrests, not long-range missiles vaporizing unarmed crews and then circling back to finish whoever’s left.
“John Wayne fantasy is not the law,” he reminds viewers, stressing that anyone in uniform is bound simultaneously by federal statutes, state law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and international treaties that explicitly prohibit targeting shipwrecked personnel.
Yet Hegseth himself once seemed almost proud of watching the entire engagement live, bragging that they knew exactly who was in that boat and what they were doing, a chilling detail that makes the later attempt to blame confusion or fog of war ring completely hollow.
Now, with public outrage building, Hegseth suddenly insists Admiral Bradley is an “American hero” whose decisions he fully supports, a carefully crafted sentence veterans recognize instantly as the setup line for a classic Washington role: designated fall guy.
There is, critics note, only one reason for top political officials to shove a previously unknown commander into the spotlight by name, and it is not to shield him; it is to make sure the public knows precisely which uniformed back they plan to shove under the bus.
Goldsmith emphasizes that this does not absolve Bradley or anyone else down the chain, because military personnel have a legal duty to refuse unlawful orders, but he warns against letting civilians who demanded the operation now pretend they were horrified spectators.
The deeper danger, Harbaugh and Goldsmith argue, is not just one strike, however grotesque, but the legal logic behind it, a logic that erases the line between policing and war, then quietly aims that same mindset inward at protesters and domestic opponents.
Trump allies have pushed to label drug cartels “narco-terrorists,” a designation that, in their hands, becomes a blank check to use the military as an execution squad instead of a force bound by constitutional constraints and judicial oversight.
At the same time, the same ecosystem has floated branding anti-fascists and domestic opponents as “terrorists” too, laying conceptual groundwork for a world where the president can call anyone he dislikes a terrorist and then claim wartime powers to crush them.
Goldsmith reminds viewers that Trump already toyed with the idea of “shooting protesters in the legs,” dismissed by some as bluster, yet the exact same logic now justifies missiles against unarmed boats, suggesting those fantasies are moving dangerously close to reality.
Even more ominously, court filings reportedly show that senior officials were explicitly advised that certain actions, including attempts to deport individuals in defiance of judge’s orders, were illegal, yet they pushed forward anyway, essentially daring the courts to stop them.
When an administration treats judicial rulings as suggestions, treats Congress as a nuisance, and treats international law as an outdated inconvenience, veterans see not tough leadership, but a textbook slide toward what scholars bluntly call a quasi-authoritarian “unitary” state.
Goldsmith describes friends who are experts on fascism literally leaving the United States because they recognize patterns they once only studied in history books, insisting this is no longer about theoretical documents like Project 2025, but about real people already disappearing.
He says some detainees sent to remote detention sites, nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” have effectively vanished from public records, a phrase that should freeze every American who still believes disappearances only happen in far-away dictatorships on grainy documentaries.
Yet even as he outlines these dangers, Goldsmith insists he is still fighting because he believes Americans share a core moral instinct, and that exposing this kind of abuse can still shock a majority into defending the Constitution instead of any single man.
He confesses that as a young soldier he once entertained simplistic ideas about using military force against cartels across the border, then admits those were the thoughts of a teenager whose only education was war, not law, diplomacy, or civilian oversight.
What terrifies him now is that the country is being steered by men who appear to have never grown beyond that adolescent, cinematic understanding of power, men who think every problem is a nail, and America’s only real tool is a bigger, louder hammer.
The Washington Post investigation, combined with whistleblowers speaking to investigators, suggests the September second attack is not an isolated horror, but merely the first strike we have specific details about, with more missions, dates, and targets waiting to surface.
Goldsmith predicts that Pete Hegseth is “going to jail” unless Trump issues a sweeping pre-emptive pardon for any federal crimes he may have committed, a shocking but legally plausible shield that would force Congress to consider the nuclear option of impeachment.
He argues that unlike Trump, who survived two Senate trials, Hegseth lacks the same cult-like protection, and that even Republican senators already calling him a potential war criminal might refuse to save him once the gruesome details become impossible to spin away.
In the background, another front is opening as veterans rally behind Senator Mark Kelly, a former Navy pilot and astronaut now being threatened with court-martial style retaliation simply for appearing in a video reminding service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders.
The video, featuring veterans stating they swore an oath to the Constitution, not to any one president, enraged Trump and his allies precisely because it highlights the one barrier authoritarian movements must break before weaponizing a nation’s armed forces against its own citizens.
Harbaugh and those veterans warn that punishing Kelly is not just a personal vendetta, but an open attempt to rewrite the culture of the military, transforming it from an apolitical institution into a personal guard whose loyalty runs upward, not outward, away from the Constitution.
Those stakes are exactly why the “kill them all” scandal matters, even for Americans who have never heard of Admiral Bradley or read the technicalities of maritime law, because buried inside the incident is a simple question about what kind of country they are willing to become.
Are Americans truly comfortable with a government that blows apart shipwrecked survivors and then shrugs, saying they were “narco-terrorists” anyway, while the officials who ordered it smile on television and hand the smoking gun to someone in uniform?
Are they willing to accept a future where designations like “terrorist” or “enemy” can be slapped onto any group—migrants, protesters, journalists, political opponents—and used to justify lethal force, detention without process, or vanishing into legal black holes?
Or will this be the moment when veterans’ warnings finally break through the noise, forcing the country to confront not just one horrific strike, but the ideology that made it possible, an ideology that treats law as optional and human life as expendable theater?
The double tap on that shattered speedboat may have lasted only seconds, but the question it raises will not fade so quickly, because every democracy eventually faces a choice between accountability and impunity, between the rule of law and the seduction of unchecked power.
Right now, whistleblowers are coming forward, veterans are speaking out, and the regime is scrambling to name fall guys and muddy the chain of command, hoping the public blinks first, loses interest, and returns to scrolling through lighter, easier content.
Whether that happens is up to readers like you, because scandals only die when people decide they are tired of caring, and illegal orders only become normalized when citizens stop asking the one question politicians fear most.
Who gave the order—and what are we going to do about it.
Leave a Reply