Started By
Message

NYT is disputing wapo story that Hegseth ordered survivors killed

Posted on 12/1/25 at 7:52 pm
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
73087 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 7:52 pm
LINK


Rarely do these papers clash.

This is interesting

quote:

According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.

But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.

Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.
Posted by theballguy
Between Colorado & DC
Member since Oct 2011
29344 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 7:53 pm to
quote:

NYT


Lock them up.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
69237 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 7:53 pm to
FBI vs CIA
Posted by ghost_rider10
JHS
Member since Nov 2025
233 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 7:54 pm to
Jesus Christ, we have Muslims flooding into our country and people are more concerned about drug runners!
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
41968 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 7:54 pm to
The plan is working.

We're forcing them to seek truth and be onjective.

#WINNING
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
109526 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 7:57 pm to
Decatur duped again.
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
31626 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:00 pm to
quote:

But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.


This is the language used by WaPo:

quote:

The commander overseeing the operation from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, told people on the secure conference call that the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo, according to two people. He ordered the second strike to fulfill Hegseth’s directive that everyone must be killed.


It's not so much as a clash as WaPo could have been a little more clear.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
13543 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:00 pm to
quote:

We're forcing them to seek truth and be onjective.


I almost read it to show the operation as half assed... maybe they didn't mean it that way. I don't trust any of them.
Posted by Bama Mountain
Member since Oct 2025
901 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:01 pm to
Interesting article. This part stood out.

quote:

A broad range of legal experts reject that analysis. But even if this were an armed conflict, it is a war crime to kill enemies who are out of the fight. That category includes enemy fighters who have surrendered or are otherwise defenseless and pose no threat.

“Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations,” the Pentagon’s law of war manual says, adding: “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”

It also says that it is “prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter,” which means refusing to spare the life of an enemy who has surrendered or is unable to fight.

Geoffrey Corn, who was the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said he believed the entire attack was illegal, because he rejects the administration’s argument that the situation can be legitimately treated as an armed conflict.

But even if it were one, he said, an order specifically to finish off shipwrecked survivors — whether or not Admiral Bradley believed he was carrying out Mr. Hegseth’s instructions — would be unambiguously criminal
Posted by Decatur
Member since Mar 2007
31626 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:01 pm to
Do you often think of me?
Posted by Narax
Member since Jan 2023
5781 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:02 pm to
Find the leakers.

Imprison them.
Posted by TheHarahanian
Actually not Harahan as of 6/2023
Member since May 2017
22931 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:04 pm to

Let the commies fight it out.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
13543 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:04 pm to
quote:

Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations,” the Pentagon’s law of war manual says, adding: “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”


And it all comes together...
Posted by VOR
Member since Apr 2009
67345 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:06 pm to
Whether you want to believe it or not, though the NYT editorial policy leans left, their straight reporting is reliable
and accurate…
Posted by TigerIron
Member since Feb 2021
3810 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:09 pm to
quote:

FBI vs CIA


CIA v. DIA or NSA, more probably.
Posted by beaux duke
Member since Oct 2023
3029 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:09 pm to
suddenly the nyt is going to be a beacon of truth for maga
Posted by Toomer Deplorable
Team Bitter Clinger
Member since May 2020
23307 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:14 pm to
quote:

Jesus Christ, we have Muslims flooding into our country and people are more concerned about drug runners!


Jesus Christ, we have THE CIA flooding JIHADISTS into our country and DEMS FURTHERING THEIR RADICAL INDOCTRINATION and people are more concerned about drug runners OFF THE COAST OF VENEZUELA!

FIFY!

Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
41908 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:17 pm to
quote:

And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.


Pretty much blows a hole in your (false) narrative…pun intended.

This post was edited on 12/1/25 at 8:18 pm
Posted by IvoryBillMatt
Member since Mar 2020
8029 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:19 pm to
I haven't read everything. For those claiming that there was a standing order of "no survivors," is there an explanation as to why the two survivors on the submarine were saved by the US and released back to their respective countries?

I don't know if geography has anything to do with it. The sub was in the Pacific. The double strike boat was in the Caribbean.
Posted by Nurbis
Member since May 2020
2078 posts
Posted on 12/1/25 at 8:22 pm to
quote:

That category includes enemy fighters who have surrendered or are otherwise defenseless and pose no threat.


So, when Osama Bin Laden was shot in the head while unarmed in his compound, that was a war crime? Since Obama, Clinton, Biden, and numerous others were in the situation room giving orders and watching as the mission was carried out, they are all guilty, correct?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram