Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly has ignited a firestorm with her graphic and unflinching comments regarding the fate of alleged drug traffickers targeted by US military strikes in the Caribbean Sea. During her show, Kelly expressed a desire for the suspects to suffer a prolonged and painful death, defending controversial follow-up attacks that legal experts are calling potential war crimes.
"I Want to See Them Suffer": Kelly's Brutal Stance
In a detailed conversation with journalist Mark Halperin on The Megyn Kelly Show, the MAGA-aligned host left no room for ambiguity about her feelings. Kelly stated she has "no empathy" for the alleged peddlers and vividly described her wishes. "So I really do kind of not only want to see them killed in the water, whether they’re on the boat or in the water, but I’d really like to see them suffer," she said. Kelly added that she would prefer if former President Donald Trump and his unofficial 'War Secretary' Pete Hegseth could "make it last a long time so that they lose a limb and bleed out a little."
Her remarks were a direct defence of US maritime operations, including a highly contentious second strike in September ordered by a top US Navy admiral. This follow-up attack, known as a "double tap," targeted a Venezuelan drug boat that had already been disabled by an initial assault, forcing survivors into the water. The second strike reportedly killed those still floating.
The Legal Firestorm: A Clear War Crime?
The September incident and similar strikes have drawn severe condemnation from opposition lawmakers and international legal experts. They argue that attacking individuals who are already incapacitated or in the water violates core principles of the law of war and the Geneva Conventions.
CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honig was unequivocal, stating, "In a word, they were illegal. It is a core principle of the rule of law and of the law of war that you cannot target and kill people who have been rendered incapacitated or defenseless." This perspective frames the "double tap" tactic not as a necessary defence but as a potential war crime.
However, the Trump administration maintains a different narrative. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that while Hegseth authorised the strikes, no order was given to "kill everybody." The administration asserts these operations are acts of self-defence, targeting vessels transporting illicit drugs to the United States.
The Human Cost and Ongoing Controversy
The scale of these military actions is significant. Since early September, more than 80 people have been killed in similar strikes across the Caribbean Sea. The public evidence provided by US officials is minimal, typically consisting of short, grainy videos released after each operation, which President Trump also shares on his Truth Social platform. These clips offer no concrete proof of drug trafficking and scant details about the boats' occupants.
Kelly dismissed the legal nuances, focusing instead on the perceived threat. "I’m really having a difficult time ginning up sympathy for these guys," she argued, suggesting the second strike was necessary to protect American citizens. The debate starkly contrasts national security concerns with established international humanitarian law, leaving a complex and morally charged question unanswered: is this a justified defence or a step beyond legal and ethical boundaries?
