Callum: You can’t get away with war crimes by calling it “fake news.”

Since September, the U.S. military has bombed ships accused of drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

Whether these attacks are legal is debated. Congress did not declare war or even authorize the use of force. The Trump administration has simply labeled various—alleged—drug traffickers as “terrorists” or members of “terrorist organizations” and then launched a war against them. The legal findings supporting all of this have not been released to the public. But whatever the case of the administration personally, it was quite weak compared to the British government announced In early November, it will no longer share intelligence related to the Caribbean operation with the United States over concerns about its legality.

On Friday, the Washington Post dropped one Bombing report About the first of these operations. During the raid, not only did the Marines capture a suspected drug-smuggling boat – as previously reported – but when survivors were seen monitoring the operation, the special operations commander ordered a second raid on the survivors, to kill everyone involved, according to Defense Secretary Pat Hegseth’s order.

“Hegseth gave the directive in the speech, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation,” the Post reported. “The order was to kill everyone,” one of them said.

Whatever you think of the wider Caribbean operation, the simple fact is that shooting survivors at sea is a war crime, under US and international law.

After Friday, at length Social media postHegseth attacked the Washington Post report as presenting “fake news . . . very bogus, inflammatory and insulting reporting.”

What Hegseth did not do was directly deny the report. Instead, he emphasized that “we have said from the beginning, and in every statement, that these highly effective attacks are specifically aimed at lethal, mobile attacks.”

Intent to kill everyone in the first attempt is not a legal excuse for killing survivors who are attached to the burning pot.

In fact, a very brief follow-up post was even more of an implausible denial: “We’ve just started killing drug terrorists.”

Even with Republican members of Congress expressing serious concern, the official narrative shifted over the weekend to a more forceful denial of “fake news.” President Trump said Hegseth denied giving such an illegal order, “and I believe it, 100%,” adding that “he wouldn’t have wanted it. Not a second strike.”

So now it appears that the White House has confirmed that there was a second attack on survivors, and admitted that it would at least be against the president’s policy. Whether the White House will admit the strike was illegal remains to be seen. But what we do know is that someone ordered the second strike. And if it wasn’t Hegseth, whoever it was, looking at the court martial—or, given who the leader is, sorry.

But I don’t want to get ahead of the news.

Instead, I will make a few points.

First, a small gripe: This agency and its advocates should be much better at using the term “fake news.” I have no problem calling a false story “fake news”. But if you know a story isn’t a lie, calling it “fake news” only makes you look like an even bigger liar and hypocrite down the road when you’re admitting the facts and defending the actions you once called lies.

More importantly, the entire Caribbean strategy is fundamentally and legally dubious. As a foreign policy, it seems like a pretense of sorts diet to change gambling at the Venezuela. If the agency has evidence to justify its action, it should disclose it. I understand the reasons for secrecy, but if they cannot convince the British through confidential channels, of the legitimacy of the operation, perhaps it is because the case is not convincing.

Even more important: illegal orders, especially orders to kill people, cannot be justified. When half a dozen Democratic members of Congress released a video saying the military should not follow “illegal orders,” the president and many of his defenders were heartened. Trump lamented that America has become so “soft” that such “criminal behavior” no longer carries the death penalty.

Democrats’ more outspoken critics complained that the video created confusion in the ranks and hurt morale. I really sympathize with this argument.

But you know what else creates confusion and hurts morale? Actual illegal orders.

X: @JonahDispatch