Top World News

Nov 30, 2025 - World

Pete Hegseth was put on notice over the weekend by two conservative lawyers, including a former prosecutor, who said the Defense Secretary's defense to a major new scandal "makes no legal sense" and is not really "a defense."Observers' eyebrows were raised after it was reported by the Washington Post in a bombshell story that Hegseth ordered the killing of two survivors of one of controversial drug vessel bombings. Some analysts questioned whether it was murder, or even a war crime.Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, recently said he has no love for the “craven video” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and five Democrats released to the public advising military members to ignore illegal orders. At the same time, McCarthy suggested President Donald Trump’s executive power abuses in reacting to it represent a whole “new level” of threat. Now, in an essay late Saturday night, the conservative weighed in on Hegseth's new scandal."If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say 'at best' because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act or war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict," the attorney wrote.McCarthy goes even further, suggesting that, "even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, 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."He continued, writing, "The operation, led by SEAL Team 6, was directed from Fort Bragg, N.C., by Admiral Frank M. 'Mitch' Bradley, then the head of Joint Special Operations Command. Admiral Bradley is said to have ordered the attack against the two survivors of the first strike in order to comply with Hegseth’s directive to kill the boat’s operators."While Bradley reportedly claimed "the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo," and Hegseth issued a response saying these were always meant to be deadly attacks, McCarthy isn't sold."Neither Hegseth’s statement nor the explanation attributed to Bradley... makes legal sense," the former prosecutor wrote. "The laws of war, as they are incorporated into federal law, make lethal force unlawful if it is used under certain circumstances. Hence, it cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one’s objective was 'lethal, kinetic strikes.'"Conservative attorney George Conway shared McCarthy's essay and wrote, "Indeed, it's a confession and admission of guilt to heinous crimes."Read the full piece here (subscription required).

Nov 30, 2025 - World

The conservative Wall Street Journal is causing an internet uproar with its new report on Donald Trump allies who are cashing in on ending the Russia-Ukraine war.The Journal's piece ahead of the weekend, Make Money Not War: Trump’s Real Plan for Peace in Ukraine, claims that, "The Kremlin pitched the White House on peace through business. To Europe’s dismay, the president and his envoy are on board.""For the Kremlin, the Miami talks were the culmination of a strategy, hatched before Trump’s inauguration, to bypass the traditional U.S. national security apparatus and convince the administration to view Russia not as a military threat but as a land of bountiful opportunity, according to Western security officials," the Wall Street Journal reported. "By dangling multibillion-dollar rare-earth and energy deals, Moscow could reshape the economic map of Europe—while driving a wedge between America and its traditional allies."The report made waves immediately.Former speechwriter to President George W. Bush, David Frum, called it a "devastating report on the real Trump-Russia deal: betray Ukraine in exchange for privileged business benefits for Trump insiders."Activist Garry Kasparov said, "As I said in my Halifax speech a few days before this damning WSJ report, this has always been personal business for Trump, not national interest.""It’s how Putin turned Russia into a mafia state and it’s been Trump’s goal from day one of his new unleashed admin," he added Saturday.Going further, he said, "And also as happened with Putin, politicians and pundits spend too much time looking for complicated motivations from ideology or psychology or blackmail. It’s money. It’s always money. They’re crooks. With immense power, but still crooks. Don’t overcomplicate things."Bloomberg Opinion columnist Ronald Brownstein chimed in, "If the betting markets did Pulitzer odds, this remarkably reported [WSJ] piece would be a comet."Read the piece here.

Nov 29, 2025 - World

President Donald Trump’s saber-rattling about potential military action in Venezuela is indeed about drugs, but not cocaine. It is about a far more dangerous drug that former President George W. Bush admitted (in his 2006 State of the Union address) the US is addicted to.Oil.Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world — 300 billion barrels — even larger than reserves in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Trump and his oil industry friends may imagine that by deposing President Nicolás Maduro and installing a friendly government there, the US would have unlimited access to this huge oil reserve, which is five times larger than the proven reserves in the US. Never mind the fact that for any hope of future climate stability, most of this oil needs to stay right where it is: in the ground.We’ve seen this tragic play before. The Bush administration justified its disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq with the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which, as it turned out, it didn’t. As US Central Command commander General John Abizaid admitted about the Iraq War at the time: “Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.” The invasion killed tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians, and destabilized the broader Middle East region for years.And now here we go again. A similar pretext — this time “drug interdiction” — is being used to justify a potential US invasion and regime change in Venezuela. But this is not about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, it is about actually increasing the flow of the dangerous drug some pushers want to keep us all hooked on.Oil. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro recently stated on the US-Venezuela threat: “Oil is at the heart of the matter.”Instead of admitting their addiction, the damage it causes, and committing to recovery, hardcore junkies are always desperate for more supply. It seems Mr. Trump and his oil industry friends are the most dangerous narco-traffickers we need to worry about.Richard Steiner was a marine professor with the University of Alaska from 1980 to 2010, stationed in the Arctic and Prince William Sound. He advises on oil and environment through Oasis Earth.

Nov 29, 2025 - World

This commentary was originally published by Big Pivots. The Sand Creek Massacre comes to mind in reading about U.S. Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), a decorated combat veteran who declared that members of the U.S. military must refuse illegal orders.“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution,” said Crow and five other members of Congress, all of them veterans of our armed forces or intelligence services, in a video posted last week.President Donald Trump went ballistic, branding them as traitors. “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” said a social media post that Trump shared. He later backtracked, saying he didn’t actually call for their deaths. Not sure what hanging short of death looks like. Crow and other legislators did report death threats.Denver7 talked with a former U.S. Army officer, Joseph Jordan. His law firm specializes in defending service members under investigation. He cited the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says service members must obey orders, unless they are “patently illegal,” such as one that “directs the commission of a crime.”But the code says those who disobey orders risk facing a court martial. A military judge decides if an order was lawful.Writing in the New York Times, David French, an attorney who served in Iraq, as did Crow, parsed details of the relevant federal law. Shooting a prisoner is unambiguously illegal, said French. Bombing a home that is thought to contain insurgents is not.Looming large is the legality of Trump’s orders to kill those on boats in the Caribbean who may — or may not — be carrying narcotics. Trump, said French, “has put the military in an impossible situation. He’s making its most senior leaders complicit in his unlawful acts, and he’s burdening the consciences of soldiers who serve under his command.”Captain refuses to killAt Sand Creek, on Nov. 29, 1864, Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer refused to allow their men to participate in killing about 200 Cheyenne and Arapahoe natives, most of them women and children.The Great Plains in 1864 were contested territory. Colorado had become a U.S. territory in 1861, but the Cheyenne and other tribes who had migrated over the previous 150 years to build lives around the plentiful buffalo herds were not consulted. Friction was growing. Murders had occurred.Desperate to figure out a co-existence, a delegation of Arapahoe and Cheyenne leaders had traveled to Denver that September. Colorado’s territorial governor, John Evans, was present but remained largely silent. The natives left, believing they had been assured safety if they remained in place in southeastern Colorado. About 350 of them and various other individuals were camped along the dry creek bed that November.Colonel John Chivington had other ideas. He was a hero from an 1864 Civil War battle in New Mexico. He had been at the peace negotiations that September. But perhaps hoping to embellish his reputation and win a seat in Congress, Chivington set out from Denver for Fort Lyons, near today’s Las Animas. There, he detained anybody who he thought would interfere with his plans.Marching overnight, Chivington and his men arrived at the Sand Creek encampment at dawn. The natives had hoisted the American flag amid their teepees, but it did them no good. A triumphant Chivington and his men returned to Denver hoisting scalps. They were welcomed as heroes.Some saw them otherwise. Soule and Cramer, horrified by what they had seen, wrote impassioned letters to their commanding officer, Major Edward Wynkoop. The Army held hearings several months later. Soule did not live long enough to be fully vindicated. He was assassinated in Denver the next April. Both Soule and Evans are buried at Riverside Cemetery, north of downtown Denver.Among many accomplishments, Evans helped found both Northwestern University in Illinois and the University of Denver. In 2014, both universities commissioned reports examining the culpability of Evans in the massacre. The Northwestern report was slightly more restrained, but both found Evans bore responsibility for helping create the circumstances. More than any other political official in Colorado Territory, said the DU report, Evans “created the conditions in which the massacre was highly likely.”Soule’s grave is marked by a simple white tombstone along with other veterans. The grave of Evans is large and imposing. Last Memorial Day, I found flowers, a flag and a testimonial at the grave of Silas Soule. Others had visited, too. As for the tombstone of Evans, I saw nothing. He had remained silent in 1864, when leadership was needed.Allen Best is a Colorado-based journalist who publishes an e-magazine called Big Pivots. Reach him at [email protected].

Nov 29, 2025 - World

Newsmax host T.W. Shannon exploded at his guest Saturday after they rebuked his condemnation of those criticizing the Trump administration’s potentially illegal military orders, calling his guest’s remarks "outrageous."“We're seeing the left now comparing our troops to Nazis!” Shannon proclaimed, pointing to remarks from Glenn Kirschner, an attorney and former U.S. Army prosecutor. Appearing recently on MS NOW, Kirschner spoke in support of the Democratic lawmakers who urged service members to defy unlawful orders.“If you're committing offenses, and your defense is going to be 'I was just following orders,' you know, that didn't work out so well at Nuremberg,” Kirschner said, referring to the military tribunals held after World War II to prosecute high-ranking Nazi officials.Following the clip, Shannon tried to get a consensus among his two guests – Joe Conason, editor-in-chief at National Memo, and Jeffrey Lord, columnist for The American Spectator – but failed to convince both of them.“Now Joe, surely we're at a point where we can all agree that comparing United States service members to Nazis is over and beyond the pale?” Shannon asked.“I don't think that's what he did, he clearly didn't do that if you listen to the clip,” Conason said. “The point is that if you follow illegal orders, you're imitating some of the worst figures in history, and we have a record with [President] Donald Trump of issuing illegal orders.”Conason went on to argue that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth – who’s carried out a number of strikes in the Caribbean at the direction of Trump targeting suspected drug traffickers, strikes that have been called illegal “extrajudicial killings” – had already violated the law with his remarks condemning the Democratic lawmakers – specifically Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) – who urged service members to defy illegal orders.“What's funny is that Hegseth clearly has no idea of what the legality of anything is!” Conason said. “He, by basically publicly convicting Mark Kelly in his remarks, violated the Uniform Code of Military Conduct himself!”Shannon went on to call Conason’s remarks “outrageous,” and encouraged his other guest to rebuke them. Lord was happy to oblige, declaring there to be “nothing illegal” about the Trump administration’s strikes on suspected drug traffickers at sea.Conason wasn’t done yet, however, and tore into Hegseth and the Trump administration for what he called their “real touch of evil.”“The question is how do you stop illegal drug smuggling? Do you murder people in advance of any showing that they were doing anything like that, or would you arrest them on the high seas as we've done in the past?” Conason said. “Or, do you just blow up boats and kill the survivors? I mean, that was the real touch of evil here. Apparently, Secretary Hegseth was informed that there were survivors of a strike and then told somebody to 'kill them all.'