Ensuring your airstrikes are legal is for pansies, or so Pete Hegseth seems to think

Are there any adults left at the Pentagon to stop War Secretary Pete Hegseth (aka Kettlebell Kegseth) from unilaterally raining death on guys in boats and then making cartoons about it for social media?

"Franklin targets narco-terrorists," Hegseth tweeted, featuring Franklin the turtle standing on a chopper and shoulder-firing missiles at motorboats. He then posted again, ostensibly defending Admiral Mitch Bradley while simultaneously giving him a tire-track massage by implying that it was actually Bradley calling the "double-tap" shots striking "drug boats" and then liquidating any remaining flailing survivors.

Apparently, we're supposed to ignore reports that Hegseth's order was to "kill everyone." That includes anyone still alive after any ostensible 'threat' - 'Venezuelan' boats allegedly carrying 'pre-workout' substances, in gym-bro parlance - had been neutralized. Somehow, this administration is shocked that we might want to investigate what's really going on here and not just take their word for it.

It appears that Hegseth gave the order and Bradley followed it. Which is exactly what a bunch of former Democratic national security officials warned against: don't follow unconstitutional orders. Trump's been talking like they should be executed for treason. He actually hasn't said how. Maybe by gifting them a cruise from Venezuela to America.

Was a Pentagon lawyer involved in assessing the legality of these attacks? Maybe, but apparently lawyering is for pansies when national security is at stake, and the president has the ability to order limited strikes. Fine. Then at least show quantifiable evidence that these rushed strikes directly help US national security. I'll wait.

Several boaters have been droned in the name of Trump's 'war on drugs,' conveniently aimed at one country - specifically Venezuela - that just happens to have all the oil and other resources Trump has mused about grabbing. Meanwhile, drug-plagued American neighborhoods go mostly unscathed. Because, apparently, bros in the hood don't have oil.

If they droned the bros at home, it would be illegal - but technically no more illegal than what they're doing in open waters off Latin America. At least in the US, we'd know who the targets were. Out there, it's a mystery.

The government says, "Trust us, they're bad guys." Sorry, but MAGA populism was built on distrust in the establishment and the demand for accountability. Now, pro-Trump factions are all-in for concentrating extrajudicial power in the executive branch.

Usually, accused drug dealers get trials. Even guilty ones don't get death squads. But according to the editor of one pro-Trump media outlet, Hegseth's critics have "forgotten the biblical purpose of government - to bear the sword, and be a terror to evildoers. They don't know what good and evil look like, and they don't know what actual justice looks like."

Call me crazy, but I thought that justice looked like due process. But apparently we're now back to 200 AD. And these "evildoers"? Who even knows who they are, or what they're doing on these boats, let alone whether they're "evil." This sounds straight out of the neocons' playbook for the Global War On Terror, some of whom have now opportunistically rebranded themselves for MAGA-populist fun time.

These blowhards claiming to know justice...don't. Justice requires a trial. But trials are for weaklings. Real men deliver 'no fatties' lectures to generals between vodka swigs while verbally berating anyone calling for a brake on their murderous enthusiasm.

They see no need for due process because it's a 'war' - except that it's not legally a war, no matter the attempt at rebranding cartel activity. We don't even know if the boaters were involved in any gunplay or drug trafficking. No receipts. Is boarding the boats, questioning those aboard, seizing any cargo as proof of assertions, and sparing survivors too inconvenient for the narrative?

International law is clear: under the Geneva Conventions, ratified by the US, "murder of persons not taking part in hostilities" is prohibited. That includes civilians. Especially once rendered harmless. Unlawful enemy combatants are liquidatable, but only if there's an actual war with a battlefield. Which there isn't. Team Trump doesn't even seem interested in making that argument legally convincing - just repeating their marketing rhetoric.

These tactics give America the vibe of a failed state. Picture Haiti: US-backed puppet government, gangs running the show, drones deployed in a nationwide turf war - but still obligated to follow rules of proportionality and engagement at the risk of committing war crimes. Why can't the US manage to follow even the most basic rules of engagement in a far less dangerous or complex situation?

A bipartisan Congress wants answers. Guess we're about to find out what the Pentagon lawyers have to say - and whether Hegseth only consulted them after pratfalling across the world stage like a frat bro in untied combat boots.

Now, the US, global law-and-order lecturer, has the chance to prove that it can investigate its own alleged war crimes. After all, it's this precise justification that's always given why Washington should be able to dodge The Hague's International Criminal Court jurisdiction.

Poor Pete. Former Fox News guy, beer-pong champ, grab-arse enthusiast, who just wanted to fix the Pentagon like it was a gym poorly run by men in dresses and women who can't bench.

Guess he's about to learn that there's a bit more to the gig than that. And why letting gym bros run the strategic decision-making is a really, really bad idea.