Letters to the Editor | Dec. 5, 2025

The U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 is explicit about what is believed to have occurred on the high seas on Sept. 2.

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.

I believe a shipwrecked individual hanging on for dear life to the detritus of an attack fits this explicit description. In fact, I would suggest the original attack order fits this description, as well, as I have yet to see evidence that these individuals were involved in hostilities or combat of any kind.

Bill Maginnis, North Wales

The majority of the letters from readers printed on Wednesday were deploring the second strike on a cartel drug boat. It appears the basis for their perceived outrage was a report from the Washington Post.

The facts are that the Post relied on a single anonymous source who presented no evidence that such an order was given. In fact, the New York Times reported that there was no direct evidence to make that determination. Yet, many people ran with another anonymous source to launch a broadside against the administration, claiming war crimes had been committed. We are entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts.

Interestingly, a group of Democratic representatives recently made a video about the importance of service members ignoring illegal orders. Then — lo and behold — an anonymous source claims such an order was given, again with no evidence. Then, the Democrats demand hearings. The sequence is interesting. There is an old saying that you can tell the people who are actually doing something about our problems by the arrows in their backs.

MG Del Rossi, Blue Bell

It is almost unbelievable that while Pete Hegseth is ordering the killing of suspected drug dealers in boats off the coast of Venezuela, Donald Trump is pardoning a convicted drug lord who brought hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States.

It is almost unbelievable that the Trump administration is seeking to court-martial Mark Kelly for making a video with fellow members of Congress, reminding members of the military that they swear an oath to the Constitution and are not required to follow illegal orders.

It is almost unbelievable that Hegseth orders a bomb strike on suspected drug dealers, and then the killing of two survivors of the attack. That the Trump administration is incompetent, corrupt, and full of hate — now that is believable.

Mary Ann Furin, Philadelphia

While there has been debate over the legality of recent attacks in the Caribbean and the Pacific, the illegality of the attack on survivors of a first strike, reportedly ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is crystal clear. Whether it was a war crime or simply murder committed in our name, there is no question that Hegseth has broken the law. This murderous act falls squarely within the “high crimes and misdemeanors” referenced in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution — the impeachment clause. If murder is not worthy of impeachment, then that section is a dead letter. Every member of the House of Representatives should be asked when we can expect articles of impeachment to be filed. If they refuse to impeach Hegseth, then they should be voted out in 2026.

Jared Cram, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.