Democrats Are Going to Prosecute Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

SCOTUS gave the president immunity.

*Joe Bribem gave his entire criminal empire immunity.

 

[kyzr]

So which is this killing of unarmed survivors clinging to a destroyed boat in open waters?

A war crime or “another type of crime”?

You guys keep forgetting Trump can issue "preemptive pardons" like Joe Biden did.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

"Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all



As two men clung to a stricken, burning ship targeted by SEAL Team 6, the Joint Special Operations commander followed the defense secretary’s order to leave no survivors.


Updated
November 28, 2025 at 4:36 p.m. EST



The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
Hegseth’s order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers.AI Icon

Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution."

https://archive.is/XaZrB#selection-373.0-467.236

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/

I have to laugh at the few fools on the Right who want Trump to stop prosecuting Democrats. Do they really think that will stop the Democrats from using lawfare?

When the Seditious Six asked military and CIA officers to mutiny against Trump's commands, I said the Dems really wanted leaks to the media. This is what the leaks become- media reports and eventually Democrat lawfare, threat, and prosecutions against Republicans and military officers. Remember the FBI used media stories that they had planted as evidence to go after Trump.

Democrats are going to prosecute 1000s of Americans if they come back to power.

Democrats put a guy in jail for a meme, text 36474 to vote for Hillary. Imagine what they will do now. Americans will get the UK treatment.

An American voting for democrats is like a chicken voting for KFC.

Democrats = traitors

 

[Lesh]

Democrats are going to prosecute 1000s of Americans if they come back to power.

Democrats put a guy in jail for a meme, text 36474 to vote for Hillary. Imagine what they will do now. Americans will get the UK treatment.

An American voting for democrats is like a chicken voting for KFC.

Democrats = traitors

Stop babbling

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

do you even know what constitutes a war crime?...

Yes Harry. Some people actually read things.

If it's not a war ceime, then its illegal under regular law. Calling it a war crime gives the fat rapist and his drunken fuckboi a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Yes Harry. Some people actually read things.

If it's not a war ceime, then its illegal under regular law. Calling it a war crime gives the fat rapist and his drunken fuckboi a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve.

^^^ Democrats provide aid and cover for drug runners smuggling drugs into America as part of their intentional collapse of America.

Democrats = traitors

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

^^^ Democrats provide aid and cover for drug runners smuggling drugs into America as part of their intentional collapse of America.

Democrats = traitors

No, that's embarrassingly stupid, and you sound like someone who is mentally challenged.

 

[Care4all]

Killing drug runners who kill 100,000 Americans annually.

Its about ******* time. After Venezuela he needs to do Mexico.

It's against the law to afterwards kill the survivors of an attack of ours, in cold blood, under all laws...U.S., International, Geneva Convention....

10 to 1 this is why the General Commanding our Military in central and South America, resigned abruptly....refusing to follow unlawful orders.

 

[kyzr]

It's against the law to afterwards kill the survivors of an attack of ours, in cold blood, under all laws...U.S., International, Geneva Convention....

10 to 1 this is why the General Commanding our Military in central and South America, resigned abruptly....refusing to follow unlawful orders.

No one was "ordered" to murder anyone. That was "anonymous source" bullshit.

Pete Hegseth lashes out at 'kill them all' report on boat strikes

Legal scholars and lawmakers from both parties have scolded the administration for providing little evidence justifying the lethal attacks

www.usatoday.com

"The defense secretary was responding to a Washington Post story citing two anonymous sources that claimed he ordered troops to leave no survivors after a missile struck the vessel, which was traveling off the Trinidad coast, as two individuals were clinging to the smoldering wreckage."

 

[dudmuck]

View attachment 1188951

Yes today's president is rent free

 

[j-mac]

That’s what Trump is already doing. What do you call killing survivors at sea?

Right now it's an unsubstantiated rumor given by two "un named" "people who are familiar".... You'd have to have a lot more than that....

 

[j-mac]

Do you support attacking survivors?

Are you that callous?

Play stupid games.....

 

[Winco]

You have no concern for Americans killed by these same types of people.

Trump depletes the troops in Afghanistan without a complete withdrawal of ALL troops, and Biden has to finish the withdrawal. Trump left only 2,500 troops.
The agreement was 'within 14 months' meaning trump could have finished the withdrawal, but TRUMP chose NOT to. Why?

Because the withdrawal was tied to the Taliban’s promise not to harbor terrorists, but since enforcement/verification was ultra-difficult and other stakeholders (like the Afghan government) weren’t part of the agreement, many of the “conditions” proved to be effectively symbolic or minimal on paper.

Then some lunatic terrorists blow up an area at the airport killing 13 service members, not honoring trumps agreement with the Taliban.
Shocking huh.

And you blame biden.


Then, trump send the NG into DC.
The NG is mostly defenseless.
They can pick up trash, but they can't arrest, they are there to assist the Local LEO.
They are left defenseless.
They are Shot by another Terrorist, that trump supposedly Vetted in April 2025.

Yet you BLAME biden.

What the Doha Agreement​

The agreement is structured in several parts. Key commitments include:

U.S. / Coalition commitments Al Jazeera+2ICCT+2

• The United States (and its allies / coalition partners) commit to withdraw all their military forces, non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers/advisers, and supporting services personnel from Afghanistan within 14 months of signing the deal. Al Jazeera+1
• As a first step, within the first 135 days after the signing, U.S. forces are to be reduced to 8,600 troops, with proportional reductions for allies/coalition forces; also five military bases are to be vacated/closed in that first phase. Al Jazeera+1
• Once the Taliban meets its commitments, the U.S. and its partners will complete withdrawal of all remaining forces — including withdrawal from all remaining bases. Al Jazeera+1
• As a “confidence-building” measure, the agreement calls for a prisoner exchange: up to 5,000 Taliban prisonersand up to 1,000 prisoners held by Afghan (or allied) forces to be released by the starting date of intra-Afghan negotiations (initially scheduled for March 10, 2020). Al Jazeera+1
• The U.S. agreed to begin a review of sanctions and rewards lists on Taliban members, with the aim of removing sanctions by a specified date (if the conditions are met). DID PRESS AGENCY+1

Taliban commitments / guarantees Al Jazeera+2Wikisource+2

• The Taliban pledged to prevent any group or individual from using Afghan soil to threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies. That includes preventing recruitment, training, fundraising, harboring — and not providing passports/visas or documents to those who pose such threats. Al Jazeera+1
• The Taliban committed to refrain from threatening or attacking U.S. or coalition forces during the withdrawal period. Afghanistan Analysts Network - English+1
• The agreement called for the start of intra-Afghan negotiations between the Taliban and other Afghan parties (government and others) — originally slated to begin March 10, 2020 — with the aim of reaching a broader political settlement. Al Jazeera+1
• After the negotiations and once a “post-settlement Afghan Islamic government” is formed, the U.S. indicated willingness to build positive relations with that government, seek economic cooperation for reconstruction, and avoid intervening in internal Afghan affairs. ICCT+1

---

What was “binding” / immediate vs. what was conditional​

• The U.S. withdrawal schedule (drawdown to 8,600 in 135 days; full withdrawal within 14 months) was a firm commitment by the U.S. side. Al Jazeera+2Wikisource+2
• The prisoner exchange clause and sanctions-review clause were also part of the formal agreement, i.e. explicit deliverables tied to the start of intra-Afghan negotiations. Al Jazeera+1
• The Taliban’s guarantee to block use of Afghan soil by terrorist groups and not to threaten U.S./Coalition forces — in principle binding. Al Jazeera+1
• Aspiration/conditional: the agreement anticipates a broader political settlement through intra-Afghan talks leading to a “post-settlement Afghan Islamic government,” and envisions future U.S.–Afghan cooperation. But the agreement does not guarantee any particular form of Afghan government, human-rights protections, governance arrangements, or a permanent ceasefire. ICCT+2The Washington Post+2

So in effect: some commitments were concrete and time-bound (troop withdrawals, prisoner exchange, Taliban counterterrorism assurances). Others — especially long-term political settlement and stability — were conditional and aspirational, dependent on subsequent negotiations.

---

Notable Limitations, Ambiguities, and What the Agreement​

• The agreement was between the U.S. and the Taliban only — the Afghan government (the government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan at the time) was not a signatory. That meant the deal lacked a foundational inclusion of the Afghan government in shaping future governance or security arrangements. European Parliament+2Congress.gov+2
• While the Taliban promised to prevent terrorist activity, the agreement did not include robust verification/enforcement mechanisms for counterterrorism — much was based on “good faith” commitments and later monitoring. rsilpak.org+2The Washington Post+2
• The agreement did not require the Taliban to commit to any specific protections regarding human rights (e.g. for women, minorities), democratic institutions, press freedom, or civil liberties. Those issues were entirely outside the scope of the 2020 accord.
• There was no guarantee of a nationwide ceasefire or end of violence — only a commitment that the Taliban would not use Afghan soil to target the U.S. or its allies. It did not commit to halting fighting with the Afghan government or ensure protection of civilians.

 

[Nostra]

Trump depletes the troops in Afghanistan without a complete withdrawal of ALL troops, and Biden has to finish the withdrawal. Trump left only 2,500 troops.
The agreement was 'within 14 months' meaning trump could have finished the withdrawal, but TRUMP chose NOT to. Why?

Because the withdrawal was tied to the Taliban’s promise not to harbor terrorists, but since enforcement/verification was ultra-difficult and other stakeholders (like the Afghan government) weren’t part of the agreement, many of the “conditions” proved to be effectively symbolic or minimal on paper.

Then some lunatic terrorists blow up an area at the airport killing 13 service members, not honoring trumps agreement with the Taliban.
Shocking huh.

And you blame biden.


Then, trump send the NG into DC.
The NG is mostly defenseless.
They can pick up trash, but they can't arrest, they are there to assist the Local LEO.
They are left defenseless.
They are Shot by another Terrorist, that trump supposedly Vetted in April 2025.

Yet you BLAME biden.

What the Doha Agreement​

The agreement is structured in several parts. Key commitments include:

U.S. / Coalition commitments Al Jazeera+2ICCT+2

• The United States (and its allies / coalition partners) commit to withdraw all their military forces, non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers/advisers, and supporting services personnel from Afghanistan within 14 months of signing the deal. Al Jazeera+1
• As a first step, within the first 135 days after the signing, U.S. forces are to be reduced to 8,600 troops, with proportional reductions for allies/coalition forces; also five military bases are to be vacated/closed in that first phase. Al Jazeera+1
• Once the Taliban meets its commitments, the U.S. and its partners will complete withdrawal of all remaining forces — including withdrawal from all remaining bases. Al Jazeera+1
• As a “confidence-building” measure, the agreement calls for a prisoner exchange: up to 5,000 Taliban prisonersand up to 1,000 prisoners held by Afghan (or allied) forces to be released by the starting date of intra-Afghan negotiations (initially scheduled for March 10, 2020). Al Jazeera+1
• The U.S. agreed to begin a review of sanctions and rewards lists on Taliban members, with the aim of removing sanctions by a specified date (if the conditions are met). DID PRESS AGENCY+1

Taliban commitments / guarantees Al Jazeera+2Wikisource+2

• The Taliban pledged to prevent any group or individual from using Afghan soil to threaten the security of the U.S. and its allies. That includes preventing recruitment, training, fundraising, harboring — and not providing passports/visas or documents to those who pose such threats. Al Jazeera+1
• The Taliban committed to refrain from threatening or attacking U.S. or coalition forces during the withdrawal period. Afghanistan Analysts Network - English+1
• The agreement called for the start of intra-Afghan negotiations between the Taliban and other Afghan parties (government and others) — originally slated to begin March 10, 2020 — with the aim of reaching a broader political settlement. Al Jazeera+1
• After the negotiations and once a “post-settlement Afghan Islamic government” is formed, the U.S. indicated willingness to build positive relations with that government, seek economic cooperation for reconstruction, and avoid intervening in internal Afghan affairs. ICCT+1

---

What was “binding” / immediate vs. what was conditional​

• The U.S. withdrawal schedule (drawdown to 8,600 in 135 days; full withdrawal within 14 months) was a firm commitment by the U.S. side. Al Jazeera+2Wikisource+2
• The prisoner exchange clause and sanctions-review clause were also part of the formal agreement, i.e. explicit deliverables tied to the start of intra-Afghan negotiations. Al Jazeera+1
• The Taliban’s guarantee to block use of Afghan soil by terrorist groups and not to threaten U.S./Coalition forces — in principle binding. Al Jazeera+1
• Aspiration/conditional: the agreement anticipates a broader political settlement through intra-Afghan talks leading to a “post-settlement Afghan Islamic government,” and envisions future U.S.–Afghan cooperation. But the agreement does not guarantee any particular form of Afghan government, human-rights protections, governance arrangements, or a permanent ceasefire. ICCT+2The Washington Post+2

So in effect: some commitments were concrete and time-bound (troop withdrawals, prisoner exchange, Taliban counterterrorism assurances). Others — especially long-term political settlement and stability — were conditional and aspirational, dependent on subsequent negotiations.

---

Notable Limitations, Ambiguities, and What the Agreement​

• The agreement was between the U.S. and the Taliban only — the Afghan government (the government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan at the time) was not a signatory. That meant the deal lacked a foundational inclusion of the Afghan government in shaping future governance or security arrangements. European Parliament+2Congress.gov+2
• While the Taliban promised to prevent terrorist activity, the agreement did not include robust verification/enforcement mechanisms for counterterrorism — much was based on “good faith” commitments and later monitoring. rsilpak.org+2The Washington Post+2
• The agreement did not require the Taliban to commit to any specific protections regarding human rights (e.g. for women, minorities), democratic institutions, press freedom, or civil liberties. Those issues were entirely outside the scope of the 2020 accord.
• There was no guarantee of a nationwide ceasefire or end of violence — only a commitment that the Taliban would not use Afghan soil to target the U.S. or its allies. It did not commit to halting fighting with the Afghan government or ensure protection of civilians.

Zero American servicemen deaths the last 18 months under Trump.

Biden followed nothing in the DOHA agreement.

Zip.
Zero
Nada.

 

[Winco]

Zero American servicemen deaths the last 18 months under Trump.

Why do you defend trump and deny the deaths of military members under trump.
I'm not saying the deaths are trumps fault, but c'mon, you are lying. WHY?

 

[Winco]

Zero American servicemen deaths the last 18 months under Trump.

Say a Prayer for these Service Members.
YPOS.

• Sgt. Maj. James G. “Ryan” Sartor — Died: July 13, 2019 — Location: Faryab Province, Afghanistan. Honor The Fallen
• Pfc. Brandon Jay Kreischer — Died: July 29, 2019 — Location: Tarin Kowt, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan. Honor The Fallen+1
• Spc. Michael Isaiah Nance — Died: July 29, 2019 — Location: Tarin Kowt, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan. Honor The Fallen
• Sgt. William Edward Friese — Died: July 18, 2019 — Location: Camp Buehring, Kuwait (non-combat related incident). U.S. Department of War
• Sgt. 1st Class Michael James Goble — Died (of wounds sustained): Dec 22, 2019 (reported Dec 23) — Location:Kunduz Province, Afghanistan. ABC News
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 David C. Knadle — Died: Nov 20, 2019 — Location: Logar Province (helicopter crash), Afghanistan. Honor The Fallen+1
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Kirk T. Fuchigami Jr. — Died: Nov 20, 2019 — Location: Logar Province (helicopter crash), Afghanistan. Honor The Fallen+1
• Sgt. 1st Class Javier Jaguar Gutierrez — Died: Feb 8, 2020 — Location: Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (wounds sustained while engaged in combat). U.S. Department of War
• Sgt. 1st Class Antonio Rey Rodriguez — Died: Feb 8, 2020 — Location: Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (wounds sustained while engaged in combat). U.S. Department of War

 

[Winco]

Nostra

Seriously Dude, WTF is wrong with you........ where you feel you must defend POS trump and DENY the actual DEATHS of Service Members.

Shame on you.
Absolutely Shameful.

 

[HikerGuy83]

View attachment 1188995Yes today's president is rent free

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This will be the thing to come. An outgoing POTUS will blanket pardon the entirety of his administration.

Biden started it of course (or whoever was running the auto pin at the time) but vengeance will dictate that it continues.

SCOTUS really needs to step in and limit pardons to those who have been convicted of a federal crime.

You can't have accountability if an administration can pardon itself for anything it does.

Need an amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's a better argument.

Can the USSC determine if Biden's pardons are legal, especially the autopen and the "preemptive" ones.

No. Pardons are not able to be overturned by the courts.