Four Shots at an Unarmed Boat in Uncontested Waters
Twenty-eight paragraphs into the story that first focused attention on the murder Pete Hegseth ordered back in September (though as it notes, Nick Turse first revealed the second shot just days after the attack) is this revelation: it took four strikes to kill first the people then destroy any debris from the targeted boats.
The boat in the first strike was hit a total of four times, twice to kill the crew and twice more to sink it, four people familiar with the operation said.
It took the most powerful military in the history of the world four shots the get the job done.
One.
Two.
Three.
Four.
That fact lies at the core of a whole bunch of other senselessness about Trump’s feckless rule. There’s Trump’s release of Juan Orlando Hernández, a proven high-level threat, even as forces that normally prevent turbulence in the Middle East gather off of Venezuela’s oil fields. There’s the many ways, starting with the destruction of USAID and definitely including Trump’s trade war, that has added to global instability. There’s the cost involved in drone-striking small boats. There’s the neutering of legal advisors who might have saved Admiral Frank Bradley from being underbussed by the guy who promoted him. There’s the pretend press corps filled with nutballs and cranks that ensures that Whiskey Pete will never be challenged with actual knowledge.
But at root, you’ve got Pete Hegseth sitting atop that most powerful military boom boom boom boom, treating it like a children’s game.
And he doesn’t realize that on this, his first attempt, and twice more after that, the most powerful military in the history of the world could not take out an unarmed boat in uncontested waters with one shot.
Donald Trump thinks murderboats make him look strong (though the video he released of this one hid that it took four shots to get the job done).
Pete Hegseth thinks murderboats make him look strong.
But holy hell, can we talk about how feckless the reality is?
Update: This timeline of the conflicting things Trump and his minions have said about the September 2 strike is useful.
“Feckless in Sea Battle”?
Pious Hegseth needs to ask himself, “How would Jesus off some brown-skinned clay pigeons?”
PS, Thanks Marcy for highlighting the target practice aspect of these high crimes on the high seas. It pinpoints the depraved ineptitude of this portion of the absolute nadir of American history we are living through right now.
Something else just struck me. If those four shots saw no push-back from the trigger-pullers then the depravity of some members of the American military will see increasing domestic blow back as these killers will have no problem committing violent crimes on fellow Americans–even once they’re separated from the military itself. Russia is seeing this exact thing with its use of convicts in Ukraine. The US might see a spike in violent crimes coming out of this because military members are being groomed to be (or being allowed to be) killers without remorse, limitation or sanction.
This gets uglier the further I think on it.
Sean
Yup. It’s greenlighting and grooming a whole cadre of Calleys.
And that’s not the only similarity between this and that Vietnam atrocity’s stain on our nation’s honor: Calley was court martialed and sentenced to life for the massacre, but Nixon commuted it and Calley ended up with 3 years of house confinement — which will be the minimum of what Trump does for any of the hundreds of war criminals he’s enabled — in the unlikely event that they’re tried and convicted before he’s evicted from the WH in a straight jacket.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/30/g-s1-14339/william-calley-lai-massacre-vietnam-death-obituary
Reportedly, there’s an OLC memo that provides legal rationales for the boat strikes. Is that what Admiral Bradley relied (relies) on to carry out Hegseth’s orders? Is he exercising his own judgment as to the legality of those orders, based on his knowledge of the laws that have been out there for decades?
The DoD’s own Law of War manual says:
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
This was 100% murder.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
As illustrated by Franklin’s aim.
I would point out that Franklin is a much beloved Canadian children’s book series here in Canada.
I read them to my grandchildren.
I’m not sure how deeply this series has penetrated into American culture, but it would similar to using someone like Sandra Boynton’s book’s in the same way.
Not a lawyer so I’m wondering, can’t someone be sued here for unauthorized use of intellectual property?
Also … gotta love AI. /s
I hadn’t realized that mock cover had been posted by SOD himself. I remember hours of enjoyment reading it to (and with) my daughter when she was little. I was going to hand wave it away, until I saw that he posted it. But no Mr. Nice Canadian when it comes to the SOD: Whiskey Pete is such a bag of shit. Excuse my French.
Sean
I did not have “Sabrina Carpenter telling ICE not to use her images and songs in their propaganda against immigrants” on my 2025 bingo card, and yet, here we are …
Convict-1 and his minions see no value in asking permission, and will hide behind official business when busted. However, Sabrina and every other artist ripped off should sue for copyright infringement in as many places as possible so markers are laid down and it hits the officials’ pocketbooks. If necessary subpoena every one of the chain of command until the perps are found. It’s interesting to see how fast this crew retreats when it becomes costly to themselves.
IIRC copyright infringement cannot be construed as ‘official business’.
Also not a lawyer, but fairly well acquainted with this kind of use.
This cover would likely fall under the free use exemption for a parody, made famous in the public consciousness for us old fogies with the case of Hustler and Larry Flynt v Jerry Falwell. Flynt, of Hustler magazine fame, targeted Falwell with a parody of a Campari ad campaign, in which Hustler concocted a fake interview with Falwell about his “first time” (the same thing that Campari did with fake celebrity interviews). When the case reached SCOTUS, it was an 8-0 ruling in Flynt’s favor with Rehnquist writing for the court.
Campari did not try to sue Flynt for IP use, as it would have fallen afoul of the same legal issue. Falwell, though, wasn’t as worried about the legal battle as much as he wanted to make a religious point — trying to set himself up as a pseudo-martyr in the culture wars, strung up on a cross by Hustler magazine..
It’s really hard to sink a Boston Whaler!
Those boats are nothing like Boston Whalers. And I doubt that the builders of those boats certified that they were manufactured in compliance with any nation’s requirements, let alone USCG’s
None of those boats have the range to reach the US. As to the first boat with 11 people aboard and four gas sucking engines, it’s hard to imagine it was smuggling drugs given the extra 10 people aboard and the limited fuel capacity.
You don’t pardon the guy that put 400 tons of cocaine on our streets if you care about illegal drugs.
[Moderator’s note: see your comment at 11:05 am. /~Rayne]
A game: yesterday this story had me picturing Pete (adult Pete) sitting in a bubble bath “bombing” toy boats around his hairy, soapy legs–and missing. It is *that* feckless. But all the more evil for the lives lost.
Has Trump’s administration’s purge of the military’s “DEI” and JAG and IG elements caused the rot to spread to those in charge of operational planning? In any case, it does not seem to have helped.
Another Republican Executive Branch full of people that can never leave US soil again (not leave the US, US soil implies embassies may be problematic).
More importantly, has Adm. Bradley said anything to make people believe Hegseth? Even if Bradley did so, there is current precedent, In re Yamashita, can could, in theory, hold Hegseth responsible for murder under US law. No chance that Johnny Roberts and company apply the same rules to Republicans as Democrats, much less follow precedents that are politically-inconvenient.
TRUMP, 12/2/25: “Land is much easier”
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m6zmoueoqj2u
Dec 2, 2025, 1:57 PM
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m6zmtruzyy2j
Dec 2, 2025, 1:59 PM
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m6zn5ohy6v2x
Dec 2, 2025, 2:05 PM
About Convict-1’s comment about Venezuela (‘they would send murderers … empty jails’), it sure sounds like thoughtcrime became a justification since nothing else is supported by reality.
Regarding Marcy’s CNN timeline update: the second entry is Rubio’s comments about the Sept 2 quadruple strike:
That was a CYA as he’s playing the “rational member” of the Trump cabal, akin to his last second attempt at salvaging the RU/UKN peace deal that Witkoff delivered behind Rubio’s back directly from Putin last week.
Speaking of which, here’s a report that Kushner and Witkoff did it again, meeting Putin separately without Rubio.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/witkoff-kushner-meet-putin-moscow-discuss-an-end-ukraine-war-2025-12-02/
The (s)hits just keep coming.
I disagree about the CYA part.
No matter who the Secretary of State is, you ALWAYS defer to the DOD on questions about military operations. Ask instead about the foreign policy implications of the strike, and that’s fair game – but not the military specifics.
This doesn’t exactly surprise me. Depending on what the hull was made of, it can be spectacularly difficult to actually sink a boat. If it was foam core fiberglass (most likely given the speed), they would probably have needed to puncture every compartment that holds air. Even if it was aluminum (the other option), small pockets of air can float pieces of the boat pretty easily. It will take more shots to make sure everything sinks. FWIW, the bow section of the freighter New Carissa took 400 lbs of explosives and 69 shots from a 5″ gun without sinking. One torpedo finished the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Carissa
What I find more interesting is that they sunk the wreckage. They must not have wanted to risk searching it and finding no drugs on board. If they were actually confident there were drugs on board, one would think that the photo op on the Navy ship would be worth it.
Good points, especially their need to obliterate the evidence, but the fact remains that this was target practice on non-combatants without so much as a whisper of constitutionally required legal authority.
As entertaining as the kinetics are, that becomes a distraction from the more important procedural processes — and those frame the possibility of an illegal act.
When you become aware that a hazard to navigation may exist, you need to locate, identify, and assess before any kinetic or other activity begins. The assessment really needs eyes-on (as in competent human eyes-on). This is best accomplished by helicopter and/or small boat.
If there are persons in the water (PIW), in or on floating debris or a derelict vessel, the entire focus of operations immediately shifts. This is so fundamental to safety of life at sea and centuries of maritime tradition that it barely merits discussion for anyone other than the criminal class. Rescue and/or recovery becomes the first priority. Only when the rescue and/or recovery of the persons has been completed will you consider how to deal with the debris. And it may take just a wee bit more effort eliminating that hazard than just pointing some kind of stand-off munitions at it.
This points out the fallacy being spread by the White House and DoD; that the later strikes were just good housekeeping and elimination of hazards to navigation. But having those comments on the record will be a good thing if efforts are ever taken to establish accountability.
Thanks for the pull-back.
The notion of seeing people in the water and deciding that the appropriate solution is to fire on them/their boat is anathema to everything that maritime law stands for. Their first duty is to offer assistance to the best of their ability to save lives. Period. These Navy ships have helicopters and small boats and are perfectly capable of pulling people out of the water. At gunpoint if you think that they’ll fight back, maybe, but you still pull them out of the water.
We do not want a world where people do not feel the need to assist US (or any, honestly) mariners in distress.
Rarely do we get the opportunity to document statements from military and government officials that so clearly illustrate misdeeds.
(USCG E-1 to O-4)
The hazard to navigation excuse is also preposterous. Hazards to navigation most often arise from partially submerged wreckage blocking narrow channels. The notion that debris from a small vessel in open water would become a hazard to navigation is laughable. And even if it did make sense somehow, it would not justify killing people.
Besides desecrating the beloved Franklin, who has spent decades helping children learn to read, the meme shared by Hegseth serves to alter the perception of the actual events.
The real murderboats are in international waters, and it’s not clear to the naked eye what’s on the boat, or maybe that’s just my eyesight getting worse.
The meme shows that:
1) the boats are almost at their destination
2) the boat people are clearly armed
3) the illicit cargo is clearly visible
Yesterday former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance posted an excellent story about Hegseth’s legal exposure for the Sept. 2 quadruple-tap boat strike:
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/bulletproof-no-more
Here’s the piece from Ms. Vance’s story that stuck out to me:
“The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Hegseth was the TEA for the operation. TEA stands for Target Engagement Authority and refers to the person in the chain of command with the authority to approve the use of force and fire upon a target. The TEA can also stop the action—for instance, giving an order to hold fire to prevent a war crime from being committed. There is always a specific commander with this responsibility, and the WSJ says that here that it was the Secretary. ”
IANAL, but if the WSJ story is true and there’s a paper trail and/or authoritative testimony that Hegseth was TEA for the strike, it’s hard to see how he can evade legal responsibility, and he’ll be politically radioactive. Tomorrow’s congressional oversight hearings with Hegseth should be informative. I hope a Democratic senator starts with a crisp yes/no question about Hegseth as TEA and keeps on slugging.
Z score,
Re:The illicit cargo is visible. I’ve been wondering about that. Is *smuggling* visible to the eye, not secreted anymore? Do these boat people not know about the boots being blown up? I don’t understand continuing on a failed path!
What if your perception about the people using small watercraft has already been fucked up? What if your assumption the persons vulnerable to unlawful attack by the US aren’t just boatmen (your word) sitting in the water in boats? or sitting in the water in boats with “illicit cargo”?
Why would fishermen suddenly stop using their boats to continue to do the work they’ve done for their entire lives, and their forebears before them may also have done to support their families?
How exactly are any observers determining the contents of the small watercraft illicit substances?
How are viewers of Trump admin’s videos of the targeted boats able to discern the legitimacy of what they’re viewing in the age of AI?
What if released images are deep fakes, and what’s being blown up are offshore oil platforms? A “Trust me” from Hegseth is worth how much really?
Reagan did Grenada, so Trump will do Venezuela. Because it’s a tradition. Bush the Elder did Panama. Bush the Younger did Iraq, and that taught the lesson, stay with the Monroe Doctrine and you don’t get burned too badly.
I’ve mentioned here before that I feel fortunate much of my (20th Century) military career and life since, coincided with a near-societal-wide appreciation of and support for servicemembers & veterans. Part of that was because the public considered us good at what we do. A more important part is that they thought we had a sense of honor and duty, of responsibility, that was diminishing in the wider society.
“Feckless in Sea Battle.” Marcy’s post and the further observations of Bruce Cole, Peterr, Rugger and Rayne are accurate, timely, and necessary. But I don’t have to like it. I know we didn’t always live up to that responsibility, but we tried. I tried. My Navy CPO son is still trying.
I had also mentioned society’s sense appreciation didn’t always exist but was earned in the decades since Vietnam, and it seems likely Trump’s East-Wing-level of demolition on everything I had always understood to be what the military stands for, is blowing away those hard-earned decades of work like they’re a droned go-fast boat, and bringing that era of respect to an end.
I won’t repeat the long and always growing bullet list of examples I included, but it started with:
• Appoint a sycophantic Fox News influencer of little experience or abilities and few apparent principles—basically, a clownishly non-serious person in every important way—to lead the Department of Defense
Youngest Purple Son—finally back from several months underway in the Persian Gulf with the USS Carl Vinson’s Carrier Strike Group, under the worst CINC & SECDEF any of us have ever known—seems unlikely to experience the decades of societal respect once accorded me & my comrades in arms. He’s preparing to PCS (Permanent Change of Station) from San Diego to Rhode Island. A shore billet, It will probably be his last assignment before retirement. He tells me, with a sense of weariness and guilt he tries not to show, that he’s glad that it won’t be on a ship in what Donald Trump considers his own Navy.
As he boasts, Trump alone could do this.