Main Justice – "Dishonorable and Inhumane"

Date: December 3, 2025
Hosts: Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord
Guest: Todd Huntley (Director, National Security Law Program, Georgetown Law; Former Navy Judge Advocate)

Episode Overview

This episode of Main Justice addresses the bombshell revelations about a U.S. military operation in the Caribbean, specifically a "second strike" that killed survivors of a previous attack on a drug-running boat. The discussion—anchored by the show's legal experts and guest Todd Huntley—dives into the legality and potential criminality of the strike under domestic and international law. The hosts also contextualize the event within the broader pattern of disregard for the rule of law in Trump’s new administration and discuss other pressing justice issues, including the shooting of National Guard members in D.C., a contentious pardon for a former Honduran president involved in drug trafficking, and a critical Third Circuit ruling on improper U.S. Attorney appointments.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction and Episode Scope

[01:03–04:49]

• Mary McCord introduces Todd Huntley, emphasizing his operational and legal background and relevance to discussing recent U.S. military actions.
• Provides context: post-Thanksgiving reports confirmed not only extraterritorial strikes on drug cartels but specifically, a devastating "second strike" that targeted and killed wounded survivors from the initial attack—raising immediate questions of compliance with law of war.
• Plans to also discuss: the D.C. National Guard shooting and its policy fallout, and the Third Circuit ruling disqualifying Alina Haba as acting U.S. Attorney in New Jersey.

2. Legal Analysis of the Caribbean Strikes

[04:49–21:16]

a) Understanding the Judge Advocate Role

(Todd Huntley, [05:27])

“A judge advocate is a military lawyer, not necessarily a judge… oftentimes when you're advising commanders and operational units, they will refer to you as judge, as a shorthand. But you're not a judge most of the time.”

b) The Lawfulness of the “Second Strike”

• Operational facts: After the initial strike, two survivors clung to the wreckage; a second strike was then ordered targeting them.
• Key insight: Even assuming the U.S. administration's claim of an ongoing armed conflict with drug cartels, it's universally illegal—under the Geneva Conventions and longstanding customary international law—to kill shipwreck survivors.

(Mary McCord, [10:48])

“That notion that you don’t kill shipwrecked personnel—even the enemy—goes back historically more than a hundred years.”

(Todd Huntley, [10:57])

“It’s one of the longest-standing traditions in international law… there were war crimes trials after both the first and second world wars, trying German personnel for machine-gunning shipwreck survivors… and several of them were executed.”

c) Citing the U.S. Law of War Manual

(Andrew Weissmann, [12:24])

“Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal… because the people who are shipwrecked are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack.”

(Todd Huntley, [13:36])

“It’s ironic that that is the example in the Law of War manual, and here we are debating whether that was lawful or not. Unbelievable.”

d) Who is Obliged to Disobey Unlawful Orders?

• All ranks have a legal duty to refuse “patently unlawful orders.”
  (Todd Huntley, [16:16])

“What makes this difficult is that orders are presumed to be lawful. And so especially at the lower enlisted or lower officer ranks, an order that is passed down, they're going to presume it's a lawful order… But as a commander, you have additional responsibilities… to ensure violations do not occur.”

(Mary McCord, [15:12])

“It’s just plain old murder under U.S. criminal law. So either way… accepting the administration’s argument for the legality of the first strike or rejecting it, this killing of survivors is a violation of law.”

e) The “Collapsing” Defense of Targeting Drugs, Not People

• Administration suggests second strike was to destroy drugs, not kill survivors.
• Huntley debunks this: If not in an actual armed conflict, the drugs are not lawful military targets. Even if they were, proportionality and alternatives must be weighed, especially with survivors present.

(Todd Huntley, [18:48])

“To get to that defense, you really have to make a lot of assumptions… If the drugs have been labeled as a military objective... But again… are we actually in a war with these cartels? Since the facts don't support that, I don't think the facts would support striking the drugs would be lawful…”

3. Chain-of-Command Controversy: Who Gave the Illegal Order?

[22:28–30:45]

• Initial reporting blamed Sec. Hegseth for the order; he now blames Admiral Bradley but claims to “have his back.”

  • Memorable Moment:

    (Andrew Weissmann, [23:40]) “That was the most hysterical laugh about this... It was basically saying, I don't have your back because you made the order — under the bus. Yes, exactly. Because you made the decision, not me, but I'm right behind you.”

• “No Quarter” Orders:

  • Huntley explains: Orders to take no prisoners, kill all, or “leave no survivors” have been recognized as illegal for over a century.
    • (Todd Huntley, [24:55])

      “...one of the oldest prohibitions in the law of armed conflict… you may not give an order to show no quarter or accept no quarter.”

• Importance of Documentation & Oversight:

  • There are likely chat logs and operational records that can resolve who ordered what.
    • (Todd Huntley, [26:23])

      “There are probably records of that. There are logs that are kept in those chats. So are those going to be made available to Congress…?”

Congressional Oversight

[27:05–29:49]

• Strong obligations exist to report such possible war crimes up the military chain and to Congress.
  • (Todd Huntley, [28:22])

    “Every military member has a duty to report violations of the law of armed conflict. That is supposed to go up the chain… and then… reported to Congress."

Mary McCord, [29:19]: “We do know now, in a rare display of bipartisanship, the chair and ranking members of the Armed Services Committees… have opened up inquiries.”

4. Broader Impacts: Morale, Legality, and Policy

[29:49–31:24]

• Huntley: Morale and faith in leadership have been damaged by the administration’s blame-shifting and lack of backing for subordinate commanders.
• Notably, a similar case in the eastern Pacific did not result in killing survivors—suggests possible shift or clarification in rules after the Caribbean incident.

5. The Administration’s Drug War Pretext vs. the Hernandez Pardon

[32:40–38:52]

• Irony/hypocrisy: While justifying extrajudicial killings as part of an anti-drug campaign, President Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, convicted for trafficking 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.

  • (Mary McCord, [33:19])

    “He was alleged to and… convicted of using his position… to facilitate the importation of over 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.”

• The pardon undermines the rhetorical justification for military operations against alleged narco-traffickers.

• The case was initiated by Trump’s first term DOJ, refuting claims of a "Biden prosecution."

• The number of lives affected by the trafficked cocaine (estimated at 4.5 billion doses) underscores the magnitude and incongruity of the presidential pardon.

6. The D.C. National Guard Shooting and the Draconian Migrant Response

[42:38–49:40]

• After two National Guard members were shot (one fatally), politicians responded by vilifying migrants and imposing sweeping new restrictions:
  • Suspension of all asylum decisions (affecting 1.5 million cases);
  • Review of green cards for people from 19 countries;
  • Halt of Afghan immigration;
  • Indefinite pause on approvals granted under Biden.

(Mary McCord, [45:48])

“All the vetting in the world doesn’t necessarily lead to the discovery that somebody at some future point might have a grievance and decide to act on it… It’s not unique to one subset of people…”

• Hosts stress the dangers of politicizing tragedy and collective punishment, contrasting this with the DOJ’s methodical post-event reviews for accountability.

7. Third Circuit Ruling on Improper U.S. Attorney Appointments

[49:40–53:28]

• The court found Alina Haba could not serve as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, citing clear violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act—the first appellate court to so rule.
• Ramifications extend to other improperly appointed U.S. Attorneys and could invalidate a raft of prosecutions.
• The administration’s options: comply and nominate qualified candidates, seek rehearing, or risk Supreme Court review—potentially imperiling all contested appointments nationwide.

(Mary McCord, [51:08])

“This is significant for other situations around the country because this is the first circuit court case we have.”

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal… the reason that it would be illegal is the people who are shipwrecked are in a helpless state and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack.”
  — Andrew Weissmann [12:24]
• “It’s ironic that that is the example in the Law of War manual… here we are debating whether that was lawful or not. Unbelievable.”
  — Todd Huntley [13:36]
• “It’s just plain old murder under U.S. criminal law. So either way… accepting the administration’s argument for the legality of the first strike or rejecting it, this killing of survivors is a violation of law.”
  — Mary McCord [15:12]
• “Morale and trust in the administration… really undercuts that.”
  — Todd Huntley on leadership fallout [29:49]

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 01:03 – Episode and guest introduction
• 04:49 – Beginning of in-depth legality discussion with Todd Huntley
• 10:33–13:36 – International law and law of war detailed explanation
• 15:12 – “Just plain old murder” if no armed conflict exists
• 22:28 – Who gave the unlawful order & chain of command fallout
• 27:05 – Reporting obligations to Congress
• 30:45 – Impact on military morale and inconsistencies in operational conduct
• 32:40 – Analysis of the Hernandez pardon and its hypocrisy
• 42:38 – National Guard shooting and anti-migrant policy wave
• 49:40 – Third Circuit ruling on U.S. Attorney appointments (Alina Haba case)

Tone & Style

• The discussion is sober, urgent, and often incredulous about the blatant disregard for law and precedent.
• The hosts maintain a rigorous, detail-oriented legal analysis grounded in experience and real-world examples.
• Occasional dry humor (such as the "I'll have your back—under the bus" moment) and passionate language (“dishonorable and inhumane”) keep the conversation human and relatable, even when discussing grave topics.

Takeaways

• The U.S. military’s targeting of shipwrecked survivors is a clear-cut war crime or, in the absence of an armed conflict, murder under domestic law—by both international norms and U.S. doctrine.
• Systemic failures of accountability and transparency have escalated under the new administration, damaging military morale and trust.
• The legal system is starting to respond with critical rulings (Third Circuit) but faces an uphill battle to rein in executive overreach.
• Policy and rhetoric around drug trafficking and immigration bear little relation to consistent rule-of-law principles and are often wielded as political pretexts.
• Congressional oversight and public access to operational records will be critical for accountability.

For Further Discussion

• Will Congress get access to the communications and logs surrounding the Caribbean strike?
• What other appointments and cases might be jeopardized by the Third Circuit’s U.S. Attorney ruling?
• Will any prosecution or accountability follow for the clearly illegal order—will the Nuremberg precedent stand?

Main Justice continues to use deep legal expertise and operational savvy to scrutinize attacks on U.S. legal and constitutional norms, providing listeners with both a moral and practical guide to the debates rocking the DOJ and the military today.