Podcast Summary: Did the U.S. Commit a War Crime?

Tangle Podcast with Isaac Saul
Date: December 2, 2025

Overview

In this episode, host Isaac Saul dives into the political and legal controversy following U.S. military strikes against alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean, focusing on the Trump administration’s escalating actions near Venezuela. Central to the episode are explosive reports that a second, lethal strike killed survivors of an initial attack on September 2—a move characterized as a possible war crime under international law. The episode delivers perspectives from the political right and left, summarizes facts, and features Saul's own pointed take on the moral and legal implications.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Scene: U.S. Boat Strikes and the War Crime Allegation

[04:43–08:25]

• Background on two sequential U.S. airstrikes against a suspected drug-trafficking boat near Venezuela on September 2.
• Allegation: Survivors of the initial strike were deliberately targeted with lethal force, reportedly to comply with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s standing order to “kill all on board.”
• International law context: Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3) prohibits violence against persons "taking no active part in hostilities," including those incapacitated or shipwrecked.
• Congressional committees and lawmakers from both parties have launched investigations; speculation grows over the legality and ethics of such military action.

2. Arguments from the Right

[10:13–14:20]

• Mixed reactions:
  • Some on the right support aggressive pressure against Venezuela and narco-trafficking, seeing the military buildup and strikes as justified.
  • Others, including legal analysts, say the deliberate killing of incapacitated survivors constitutes a war crime.
• Concerns include:
  • The questionable legality of attacking alleged drug boats without Congressional authorization or direct military threat to the U.S.
  • Some right-wing pundits question the Democratic Party's opposition, suggesting it springs from misplaced empathy toward suspected drug traffickers.
• Notable Quotes:
  • Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review:
    “It is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight… It is not permitted under the laws and customs of honorable warfare to order that no quarter be given, to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight.” [12:16]
  • Nicole Russell, USA Today:
    “If war crimes have been committed, the chief of the Department of Defense should be held accountable. I support the United States defending itself vigorously… but I can't support the Democrats push to go too far and make criminals and illegal migrants their heroes either.” [13:43]

3. Arguments from the Left

[14:20–18:35]

• Overarching position: The left decries the actions as clear-cut war crimes and demands accountability and legal action.
• Broader critiques include:
  • The strikes represent “imperialism” and a return to gunboat diplomacy in Latin America.
  • The lack of Congressional authority and disregard for international law is highlighted.
  • Skepticism about the true strategic purpose behind the military buildup.
• Notable Quotes:
  • Jeet Heer, The Nation:
    “The killing of struggling survivors is the most clear-cut case of a war crime. It is murder, pure and simple.” [15:18]
  • Zaid Jilani, The American Saga:
    “Given that there is no actual declared war between suspected drug smugglers and the US military, it might just be murder.” [16:11]
  • Bloomberg Editorial Board:
    “The US needs a strategy in Venezuela, not airstrikes… More useful, however, would be a strategy. What purpose this armada is meant to serve remains stubbornly opaque.” [17:26]

4. Host Isaac Saul’s Take

[18:35–26:40]

• Saul draws parallels to prior global conflicts, saying it’s naive to ignore the clear signals of growing armed confrontation between the U.S. and Venezuela.
• Sharp critique of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth:
  • Saul calls Hegseth “deeply unqualified” and points to a track record of chaos and controversy.
• On the legality and ethics:
  • Saul agrees that the actions, if reported accurately, amount to a war crime—even under the administration’s own rationale.
  • Points out the administration’s legal justifications are “nonsense”: “What it isn't is a rebuttal of a single fact reported by the Post.” [22:49]
  • Saul expresses personal conflict as someone angered by drug cartels’ impact but insists that summary executions by U.S. forces cross a moral line.
• Broader implications:
  • Notes the inconsistency in targeting—highlighting the recent Trump pardon of a former Honduran president convicted of drug trafficking.
  • Concludes that the episode is “deeply upsetting and disappointing,” particularly for U.S. service members ordered to commit potentially criminal acts.
• Notable Quotes:
  • “The Secretary of Defense is now openly, brazenly, unambiguously committing war crimes. If this isn't your first time reading Tangle, you know that I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or sensational. That's just not what I do.” [20:32]
  • “I do not feel sympathy for people who profit off of polluting our streets, whether they're Venezuelan drug runners or Chinese fentanyl importers or… American drug dealers themselves. Yet somehow, even on this front, the administration has made it impossible to support their actions. Not only have they openly committed a war crime… but their policy is incoherent.” [23:54]

Notable Moments & Quotes (with Timestamps)

• Geneva Conventions and Law of War Context: [04:56–06:57]
• Andrew C. McCarthy (Right legal critique): [12:16]
• Jeet Heer (Left, war crime accusation): [15:18]
• Isaac Saul, on Hegseth’s fitness to lead: [19:16]
• Saul, on the implications for American service members: [25:47]

Relevant Numbers & Polls

[30:49–31:48]

• Since September 2: 91 days since first strike
• Reported killed in initial strike: 11
• Alleged drug boats hit to date: 21
• Total reported killed in strikes: 82
• U.S. troops stationed in Caribbean: 15,000
• Polling: 29% of U.S. adults support killing suspected drug traffickers without court involvement; 51% oppose; 30% support U.S. action in Venezuela; 70% oppose.

Episode Flow (Timestamps for Major Segments)

| Segment | Timestamps | |--------------------------------------|--------------| | Episode Introduction | 01:58–03:18 | | News Recap / Quick Hits | 03:18–04:43 | | Main Story (U.S. strikes context) | 04:43–08:25 | | The Right’s Arguments | 10:13–14:20 | | The Left’s Arguments | 14:20–18:35 | | Isaac Saul's Personal Take | 18:35–26:40 | | Listener Q&A | 28:10–29:57 | | Notable Numbers | 30:49–31:48 | | “Have a Nice Day” Story/Closing | 31:48–32:47 |

Tone & Language

• Balanced, critical, and analytical: All sides are fairly presented and Isaac Saul’s opinions are candid but not sensationalized.
• Original voices quoted: Key commentators’ words are included verbatim.
• Saul walks the line between stern legal analysis and empathetic patriotism, often using direct language to emphasize the gravity of the administration’s actions.

Takeaway

This episode of Tangle provides a thorough, even-handed dive into one of the most serious accusations against the U.S. military in recent years, weighing the legality, strategy, and morality of the Trump administration’s actions against drug traffickers near Venezuela. While opinions from across the spectrum are presented, Saul’s own conclusion is emphatic: the strikes, if the facts stand, are indefensible legally, morally, and strategically, and bode ominously for future U.S. conduct and reputation.