Shocked? I’m as Shocked as Casablanca’s Captain Renault
Why are we pretending to be shocked that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is now accused of issuing a spoken order to “leave no one alive” after a maritime strike in the Caribbean? He has been signaling this worldview for years. Frankly, I’m no more shocked than Captain Renault discovering gambling at Rick’s Café in Casablanca. Hegseth has been broadcasting who he is and what he believes long before he took office.
According to reporting, during the first of more than 21 such strikes in early September, two survivors were spotted clinging to the wreckage of a disabled boat. Instead of rescuing them—as required by international law—Adm. Frank M. Bradley allegedly directed another strike to comply with Hegseth’s standing order that no one be left alive. The administration claims 11 deaths, but in total, 83 people have died in these operations—without a declaration of war.
And this is where the outrage rings hollow. Since at least 2014, Hegseth has been publicly dismissing the Geneva Conventions as “an outdated document” that restrains the U.S. military. He has said repeatedly that our enemies “don’t follow any rules,” therefore the United States should liberate itself from humanitarian constraints.
The Geneva Conventions Are ‘Outdated’?
Hegseth Proves Why They’re Not
But here is the truth—clear, unambiguous, and older than Hegseth’s entire career:
Under both the 1907 Hague Convention (X) and Geneva Convention II (1949), it is absolutely illegal to kill shipwrecked survivors. Article 12 states that those who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked “shall be respected and protected in all circumstances”—including survivors in lifeboats, in the water, on debris, or surrendering. Killing them is a war crime, a violation of international law, and prosecutable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
This rule exists because of World War II atrocities—cases where survivors in the water were machine-gunned, leading post-war tribunals to declare clearly: once a combatant is out of the fight, killing them is unlawful.
Hegseth Didn’t Hide—We Just Didn’t Listen
During his Senate confirmation hearing on January 14, 2025, Hegseth all but waved a red flag. Senator Angus King pressed him on whether he would commit to upholding the Geneva Conventions, and Hegseth refused, calling the rules of war “burdensome.” He openly rejected the idea of “handing our prerogatives” to international law. He did not officially repudiate the Conventions—but he also refused to commit to following them. And in diplomacy and military affairs, that distinction is enormous.
Hegseth’s War on International Law
Hegseth has spent a decade constructing this philosophy in plain sight. On Fox News and Fox & Friends, he repeatedly argued that Geneva was written for another era, that it shackled U.S. troops, and that enemies exploited American adherence to international law. When someone spends ten years calling humanitarian law obsolete, why should anyone be surprised when he behaves accordingly?
In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, he asks whether the U.S. should even follow the conventions and suggests America would be “better off… winning our wars according to our own rules,” arguing that current rules leave U.S. forces “fighting with one hand behind our back.”
So no—I am not shocked by these allegations. Not in the least. Hegseth has laid the predicate for this behavior for years. Just as I wouldn’t be shocked to learn he had taken a drink, I am certainly not shocked to see him do exactly what he has been threatening to do: treat international law as optional, and human life as collateral.
The only real shock is that some of us are shock.
