Statement On The Killing Of Survivors
Statement on the Killing of Survivors of U.S. Navy attack on an unarmed civilian craft posing no danger to U.S. Forces and not engaged in combat
The Steady State condemns in the strongest possible terms the deliberate killing of unarmed men clinging to the wreckage of a vessel destroyed by the U.S. Navy — an act openly admitted today by Karoline Leavitt who defended what can only be described as a war crime, or, in the domestic context, homicide.
By Leavitts’ own admission the survivors were executed while in the water, defenseless, and no longer a threat. That admission — and the defense of the order — reveals the stark truth: what occurred was not an unfortunate tragic side-effect of combat, but an intentional, premeditated act of violence against persons rendered helpless.
Under the rules governing armed conflict, persons rendered “hors de combat” by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck — whether combatants or not — enjoy absolute protection against being made “the object of attack.” As the Department of Defense Law of War Manual (DoD Law of War Manual) states: “Persons who have been incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack.” To do so is to commit murder — a grave breach of international humanitarian law, and a war crime under U.S. law.” It is worth quoting the relevant law (18 U.S.C. 2441) in relevant part, with emphasis added:
a) Offense.—Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. (c) Definition.–As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct–
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character;…
(d) Common Article 3 violations.–
(1) Prohibited conduct.–In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
.
(D) Murder.–The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
…
(f)Certification requirement.—
(1)In general.–No prosecution for an offense described in subsection (a) shall be undertaken by the United States except on written certification of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General, which function of approving prosecutions may not be delegated, that a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
This is not novel. The principle was so resoundingly affirmed in the wake of global atrocities that followed the Second World War — above all in the trials that assembled the successors to the prewar “no-quarter” customs. Even the wartime submarine captains of the German navy who flouted conventional morality and ordered summary killings were condemned. The judgment of the world, and of history, was unambiguous: “I was just following orders” is not a defense. Indeed, during the postwar prosecutions, the act of murdering shipwrecked or surrendered survivors was treated as a war crime — even where combatants claimed existential threat, even in total war. The legacy of those trials is the foundation on which the law of war stands today — and the U.S. military’s own rules reflect that legacy.
If the reports are accurate, the decision to “take out” survivors was not a battlefield split-second decision, but a deliberate command. According to reports, that command came from Pete Hegseth, who ordered “no quarter,” and was executed under the supervision of senior naval leadership — reportedly including Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley. Since those reports, President Trump has asserted he knew nothings about it, and Secretary of Defense Hegseth denied responsibility or giving any orders. Secretary Hegseth refers to the “fog of war,” but is a fog not of war, but of a cascade of dissembling, obfuscation, and finger pointing that we face.
That is not only a failure of command discipline — it is a betrayal of the oath sworn by every service member. An order to kill defenseless, helpless survivors cannot be justified under U.S. law, international law, or any moral code worthy of respect.
What we are seeing is not an aberration. It is a dangerous precedent — a real-world example of an “unlawful order” executed under official sanction, one that could become a blueprint. Training, doctrine, and the fundamental norms of civilized conflict exist to prevent exactly this kind of atrocity. If such acts become normalized, even tacitly tolerated, the guardrails that separate lawful military force from summary execution collapse. Once the doctrine of “absolute, unfettered authority” replaces law, the U.S. transforms — in practice — from a constitutional republic subject to law, into something closer to a regime of arbitrary power.
The Steady State calls for immediate, full accountability:
Congress should open formal hearings — public, transparent, and forceful — to establish a full record of what happened, who ordered it, who carried it out, and who authorized it at the highest levels.
The Department of Defense and Department of Justice must conduct thorough investigations.
The Attorney General should assess whether to “certify,” in accord with U.S. criminal law, “… a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice and whether a Special Prosecutor is warranted — and, if so, appoint one to investigate whether war-crimes charges should be brought.
The Congress should determine whether Congressional action, including impeachment of Secretary of Defense Hegseth is an appropriate response.
The United States military — and the American people — must reaffirm that no one, not even the President or his top advisors, is above the law. If we fail to act now — to condemn, investigate, and punish — we risk forever tarnishing the moral and legal foundations upon which American military power and international trust depend. Not for politics. Not for vengeance. But for the preservation of what separates lawful force from murder.