Reed EXPOSES Hegseth’s Lies: “This Operation Was Illegal.

🚨 The Rule of Law or the Rule of Contempt? Hegseth’s War on Warriors and the September 2nd Cover-Up

The political theater of Washington often produces noise without substance, but the recent address by Senator Jack Reed cut through the clamor with the precision of a surgical strike. What he laid bare was not merely a military blunder, but a deliberate, calculated assault on the very laws and principles the American military is sworn to uphold—and the Defense Secretary who openly champions their destruction.

Pete Hegseth, a man whose public contempt for the established laws of armed conflict has been a matter of record for years, is now facing the unavoidable consequence of his destructive ideology: an alleged war crime and a collapsing cover-up he personally oversaw. The gravity of this moment cannot be overstated. This is not about political preferences; it is about the fundamental, life-saving difference between a professional fighting force and an outlaw gang.

The facts of the September 2nd strike on a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean are, according to multiple reports and now admissions, terrifyingly simple. After an initial strike, survivors were left clinging to the wreckage. Then, a second strike was carried out, which reportedly killed those survivors.

Hegseth’s initial response, predictably, was a flat denial. But the White House itself quickly contradicted his spin, confirming he authorized the strikes and that the operational commander, Admiral Bradley, ordered the second, deadly action. The Secretary’s defense—or lack thereof—is a masterclass in hypocrisy and buck-passing, culminating in the shocking public claim that the second strike was “the correct decision.”

This admission tears a hole through the bedrock of American military law. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual is not a document of theoretical nuance; it is a text of crystal clarity. It explicitly states, for the benefit of all—from the newest recruit to the highest command—that “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.” This is not a gray area; it is a glaring, unmistakable line in the sand. To cross it is to commit an act that is, by the consensus of legal experts, a war crime.

The sickening irony is that this latest incident is not a deviation for Secretary Hegseth; it is the natural culmination of his deeply held, destructive beliefs. For years, he has treated the rule of law as an inconvenient bureaucratic annoyance, expressing open contempt for the law of armed conflict. He aggressively lobbied for the pardoning of military personnel convicted of war crimes and military contractors convicted of killing Iraqi civilians. He is the champion of reinstating torture, including waterboarding, and his own book lays out his corrosive worldview, arguing that if the rules of the Geneva Convention impede victory, “aren’t we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules?”

This is the man who stood before hundreds of generals and admirals at Quantico and commanded them to “Don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement,” demanding they “untie the hands of our war fighters” for “maximum lethality.” His final, unforgivable demand was an ultimatum: if his words made their hearts sink, they should “do the honorable thing and resign.” Hegseth has deliberately created a chilling environment where military leaders are forced to conform to his lawless interpretation or face dismissal. This fundamentally contradicts the oath taken to uphold the Constitution and the laws of armed conflict—an oath designed to protect American service members as much as it protects non-combatants.

This systematic devaluation of the law has created a culture where a clear legal boundary—do not execute the shipwrecked—can be casually crossed and then defended as “correct.”

When the consequences hit, the Secretary’s true nature as a leader was revealed. He immediately began pointing fingers, attempting to place the full responsibility for the alleged war crime squarely on the operational commander, Admiral Bradley. This is a betrayal of the most sacred bond in military leadership: a leader can delegate authority, but they can never delegate responsibility. By giving orders and then rejecting the catastrophic results, Hegseth has demonstrated a cowardice that every combat leader under his command must be taking careful, damning note of.

The administration’s refusal to explain itself—their stonewalling of Congress and the American people—is a de facto admission of guilt. Why, after three months of formal, statutory requests, is the Pentagon still refusing to provide the executive orders, the full unedited video and audio, the rules of engagement, and the OLC legal documents that supposedly justify this operation? If the operation was legal, moral, and served vital American interests, transparency would be welcomed and obvious. Their refusal suggests they know the truth is highly incriminating and that their “tortured legal rationale” cannot withstand public scrutiny.

The issue here is not merely Hegseth’s repeated dishonesty—though that makes oversight essential—the issue is the law, and the catastrophic negative impact of its violation. Shamelessly violating the laws of armed conflict does not make America stronger; it makes us reckless and, more importantly, puts every American service member at risk of receiving the same lawless treatment from future adversaries.

The demands for immediate action are non-negotiable: a Department of Defense investigation into the September 2nd incident, the declassification and publication of the full unedited video, and the declassification of the Department of Justice legal opinion underpinning the operation. If the legal reasoning is sound, let it withstand public scrutiny. If it cannot, the operations must cease, and the perpetrators must face accountability.

The longer this administration attempts to hide behind walls of secrecy and lies, the more damaging the truth will be when it inevitably arrives. The question before the American people is this: can a Secretary of Defense who openly despises the law, lies about an alleged war crime, and endangers our troops through his reckless ideology possibly remain in office? The law demands better, the American people deserve better, and our service members are owed nothing less.