Judging Freedom - AMB. Chas Freeman : US Killing Non-Violent Civilians.

Episode Date: December 2, 2025

AMB. Chas Freeman : US Killing Non-Violent Civilians.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025. Ambassador, Chas Freeman, joins us now. Ambassador, I do want to speak to you. I want to prevail upon your expertise as a former deputy secretary of defense concerning what is a developing story as we speak in the killing of survivors from the attempts to destroy these boat people in the Caribbean.

But before we get there, a few other questions that have been popping up, as we speak, the President's emissaries, neither of whom is the Secretary of State, neither of whom has been fed by the FBI, confirmed by the Senate, is representing the Trump administration speaking in the Crown. Why would the Kremlin want to negotiate with these people now when it's on the cusp of achieving its military objectives in Ukraine? Well, I think the Kremlin wants to keep the lines of communication to the Trump administration, which is dominated by Donald Trump with no real government policy process now in place. Marco Rubio, whose absence you noted, is concurrently Secretary of State and National Security Advisor and the chief archivist of the United States and the head of the pitiful remnants of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

How many jobs does he have? Or at least. Well, he's not doing any of them, really, in my view, but certainly not managing the Department of State, which he has helped to gut. We don't really have the diplomatic capabilities that we traditionally have had. And in any event, the president clearly prefers commercial deal makers, cronies of his, his son-in-law, to anyone with a professional experience in peacemaking. And the result has been no peace. So, of course, Vladimir Putin wants to keep the lines of community. to Trump open, so he will politely receive Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

I hope this time they have a note taker or an interpreter with them. They have not in the past, very amateurish. But I don't expect anything very concrete to come out of this because the proposal that the Trump administration basically cooked up unilaterally with Kirill Demetri of a crony of a business crony of Mr. Putin is essentially a unilateral effort, doesn't represent any agreement between the warring parties. Certainly the Europeans, NATO members of Europe, have been opposed to it and tried to water it down or deform it so that the war can continue. Ukraine has obviously not agreed to its basic terms.

And, of course, Russia really hasn't ever been officially consulted until this moment. So I think the prospect for any real success here are quite damn. Finally, as you point out, and as Vladimir Putin has pointed out, if there is no peace agreement that satisfies Russian demands that have been consistent, for years, then he will take by force what is not

yielded at the negotiating table. You cannot attain at the negotiating table what you have lost on the battlefield, and that is exactly what we are trying to do, pretending to be a mediator when we are co-belligerent. I am not a fan,

and I know you're not, of Marco Rubio, but can you imagine, imagine him saying to the president, well, I'm going to fly to the Kremlin and talk to Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, and Trump's saying, no, you're not. I'm sending my son-in-law and my business partner from Manhattan instead. I mean, this is really deeply disturbing, highly unorthodox, and probably not respected by the Russians. Well, there's a real question, you know, does Marco Rubio head a Department of Government, or he's just Marco Rubio flying around? No, the Department of State, which was the first Department of our government to be created, has had deep expertise on Russia, China, European matters, Latin America. where's the evidence of that expertise being tapped where is the evidence that marco rubio knows how to

delegate anything why is it the case that that we leave the resolution of problems to the summit or to the highest level dialogue when when you do that if you fumble you leave the goal open behind you. There's no goalkeeper. And it's very risky. And without adequate preparation, it just doesn't work, as we've seen again and again. Here is an example, ambassador of neocon and EU Russophobia. Tell me what you think of this. This is Congressman Mike Turner on Sunday. Chris, cut number 10. One thing that I think everybody understands is that you can't have you can't be America first and pro-Russia because, you know, Russia has as a self-declared adversary of the United States. It's fielding, you know, new advanced nuclear weapons that are specifically targeting the United States.

It's constantly attacking the United States with offensive cyber. It continuously identifies both NATO and the West, the United States, as its adversary. So in this, and of course, when it identifies Ukraine as its adversary, it does so in identifying the West and the United States as its adversary. You have to understand that the balance of this peace arrangement has to be one where you have to look at Russia as a skeptical adversary. That is an imbecility reduction of everything to a zero-sum game. And, of course, it's entirely one-sided in its present.

Russia actually applied to join NATO. Russia made a serious effort after the end of the Cold War to integrate itself into our world order and was rebuffed. Instead, we, contrary to our promises, that we would not advance our European sphere of influence on troop presence one inch to the east, we incorporated Eastern Europe into NATO, to NATO and then proposed to do so is Ukraine, placing American weapons systems within

range, easy range of Moscow on the Russian border with the results that we have seen. We're now seeing deep strikes from Ukraine into Russia. I don't see any deep strikes from Russia into the United States. So this is the opposite of an intelligent understanding of world affairs. It is perhaps a sort of an extrapolation from what's happened in our Congress, where a winner take-all is the norm, and nobody reaches across the aisle and tries to accommodate the other side or take its interests into account, with the result of we have an impasse in our own government. And the formula that the congressman stated is a great formula for an impasse internationally. that nonsense is embraced by the EU and by the vast majority of members of Congress. Switching gears, was the Whitkoff-Kusner-Ghasa peace plan, I can't even say this part with a straight face,

with Tony Blair as the Governor General of Gaza, was this a fraud all along? Did the Netanyahu government have any intention of carrying through with phase two or phase three? they're still killing people left and right? Well, there is no ceasefire, despite the fact that we keep hearing that there's something about a ceasefire. This is like the ancient mythical peace process, which processed nothing at all and certainly never reached a peace. It is a useful fiction, a diplomatic fiction, if you want to analogize it to a legal fiction, a convenient misstatement of reality which allows people to do other things that they want to do. In this case, support Israel and not deal with Palestinians at all.

So there is no peace. I don't think Netanyahu and his government ever even pretended that they were going to go on to phase two or three in this agreement. They have not honored any of the various so-called peace agreements or ceasefires that the Whitkoff team has arranged. Not in Lebanon, where they're carrying out murders, assassinations, and bombing and have established bases inside Lebanon from which they won't withdraw. They have been attacking the United Nations group in Lebanon, which after 50 years is about to. disappear leaving lebanon naked to uh israeli aggression uh so yeah i think the answer is no uh there never was a peace agreement there never was a peace plan uh there was a unilateral i don't know what passed to a real estate deal in gaza did don't trump bite off more than he can chew i mean he is

uh at least publicly claimed responsibility for enforcing peace he can't really do that without tremendous political blowback here because the Zionists here don't want peace. Well, the various peace agreements that he claims he has arranged are all fictional. There's no peace between India and Pakistan. As we

speak, India is denying overflight to Pakistani aircraft which would take relief to Sri Lanka at the southern end of the Indian Peninsula, which is badly battered by a cyclone as has been Indonesia.

There's no peace between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There's no peace between the Ecuadorians and the Peruvians. There's no peace. Anyway, I mean, all these things are claims. They're basically designed to produce a pseudo event, a photo op, some kind of signing ceremony, but they're totally empty. They don't work. And the same thing is true of Gaza.

It's a phony peace. There's no peace. And the same thing, unfortunately, up to now, has been true in Ukraine. Is there peace between the United States and Venezuela? No, we have just engaged in several acts of war. We are conducting apparently an aerial blockade. We have been blockading Venezuela and actually murdering people from Venezuela on the high seas, which is an act of piracy.

to which the Venezuelans would be entirely entitled to respond. They are appropriately cautious because they know that the military might of the United States is so much greater than their own that they don't want to get into a fight. They have organized themselves, however, to contest any invasion or strikes on land inside Venezuela. And I note that they do have the S-300 Russian air defense system, which could take a toll on any aircraft that carry out the strikes that we hear are in preparation. Does Venezuela oppose the slightest threat to the national security of the United States? No, not unless it becomes a country which, like Cuba, in the Cuban Missile Crisis,

or like Ukraine today vis-à-vis Russia, becomes a platform for. for possible missile attacks on the United States, but it hasn't done that. It's not even a significant drug source. The boats that are being blown up, if they are in fact carrying any drugs, and we don't know whether they are or aren't, that are probably carrying cocaine to Trinidad,

for which it would go to West Africa and possibly Europe, not to the United States. So this is a, and entirely concocted. This is about as truthful as Hitler's claim that the Poles attacked him in 1939. There is, as we speak, this controversy raging in Washington, which I think is going to result in the Secretary of Defense leaving his office either voluntarily or involuntarily over whether or not he ordered the military to kill two survivors on September 2nd. So we're now three months ago.

Apparently, in this act of piracy, the American military destroyed a speedboat and two people survived. And they were clinging in the middle of the ocean to the remains of the boat, hoping to be rescued. Instead of rescuing them, the Secretary of Defense ordered an Admiral to order his people to kill them, and those orders were followed. Were those orders war crimes?

Yes, clearly. First of all, there was no basis for destroying the boat. The normal procedure under international law, if you believe there is contraband to board a boat, is to board the boat and inspect it. But we had the right to do that. We did not do that. Instead, we murdered people on the boat on the basis of suspicions, not evidence.

So that was a crime in itself. If you follow that up by murdering people who have survived a strike and who are obviously of no threat because they are clinging debris in the ocean, then you compound the crime. And in fact, there is an obligation under international law to rescue people like that, not to murder them. And so if this is the warrior ethos that Mr. Hegeseth espouses, I don't think Americans should want any part in it. Here's what Secretary Hegsseth said about the rules of engagement, which you just described. he referred to them as stupid cut number seven we unleashed overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy we also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement we untie the hands of our warfighters

to intimidate demoralize hunt and kill the enemies of our country no more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement just common sense maximum lethality and authority for warfighters That's all I ever wanted as a platoon leader. And it's all my E6 squad leaders ever wanted. Back to that E6 rule. We let our leaders fight their formations. And then we have their back. It's very simple, yet incredibly powerful.

It's odd. He took an oath to comply with the rules of engagement. And he's now openly advised. That was a speech he gave to every, theoretically. every admiral and general in the United States military saying the rules of engagement are stupid and we're not going to comply with them. Well, at least he's consistent. He certainly didn't comply with him on this killing. The killing is pretty obvious. He told his and my former colleagues at Fox and Friends that he watched all of this happen. He watched the boat being

destroyed and then he watched the two survivors being killed and then he posted a child's meme yes saying Franklin now this Franklin is a turtle a child's meme and it shows Franklin and using some sort of a military device to kill people in a boat. But then it says, for your Christmas wish list, what kind of a sick person encourages children to wish for Christmas the deaths of others? It is pretty appalling. I think there's another element, here, and that is, there's an obvious effort by the White House and by Mr. Heggseth to put

blame on the admiral who actually passed on the apparent verbal order from the Secretary of Defense, who calls itself the Secretary of War. That admiral is subject to court marshal. Yes. Because he carried out an illegal order. And of course the issue of whether orders are legal or not is comprehensively addressed by the U.S. military in their code of conduct. And we have an obligation as Americans in the Federal Service, civilian or military, to not follow illegal orders. That was the issue at Nuremberg. I was just following orders, said the Nazis. Well, that is not an excuse. If you know the order is obviously illegal, you must resist it. And we have six members of the House and Senate who have bravely stepped forward and reminded

everyone of these rules, which are serious rules. They are not stupid rules because what is done to by us to others can be done by others to us. And there either is some regulation of war to keep it below the utterly savage level or there is not. Mr. Hegeseth

clearly doesn't want any restraints on the mass murder that war is. And that is very un-American. Here's a Q&A with the White House press spokesperson yesterday. This is truly

remarkable because she refers to the murder of these two poor souls clinging to the remnants of the boat to keep from drowning. She refers to their killing as, are you ready for this, ambassador? Self-defense. Cut number nine, Chris. You said that the follow-up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors? The strike conducted on September 2nd, was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict. Lies, lies, lies. But of course, the tortured reasoning here is that Americans are killing ourselves with drug addiction.

We take overdoses. A huge number of Americans die from fentanyl every year, and it is correct. focus on trying to correct that problem, but you can't correct it by killing fishermen in the Caribbean. And the notion that somehow, apparently, you know, people who are suspected of carrying drugs somewhere, somehow can be just murdered rather than intercepted and inspected. And if they're found to be carrying drugs apprehended and arrested and charged for the crime, the fact that you know that you can distort this to claim it that's in self-defense is absolutely amazing and i would say really what has happened is we have adopted the israeli standards

of warfare in which uh you know if you if you want to kill somebody important and you do collateral damage to 100 other innocent people that doesn't matter uh and in which in fact the laws of war are totally ignored. We insist on there being applied to us, but not to others. And so this is Orwellian, really. Well, we'll see what happens. It's a developing story. I think the pressure on President Trump is going to grow. You and I mocked Congressman Turner, and rightly so, because of his silly Soviet-era Russophobia. However, he did later on in that interview come to his senses, and that's on this issue of murdering the fishermen.

Chris, cut number two. War experts are saying that that was illegal, that killing people who are no longer able to fight is a war crime. What is your view and what questions do you have for the Pentagon? Congress does not have information that that had occurred. Both the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee

and ranking members have opened investigations. Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act. Well, but what are you going to do about it? You know, there is a question here. Obviously, the president has the ability to dismiss Mr. excess at any time, but there are processes in the Constitution called impeachment, which is also relevant. And if the Congress really believes that a war crime has been committed by a member

of the cabinet, they have the power to impeach that person. And they should do so. Yes. Well, we'll see where this goes. Ambassador, the vastly different Department of Defense than the one in which you served. No question about it. But thank you. Thank you very much for your time. And your insight is always, Ambassador. It looks like you're getting snow there in New England. Well, not here. I'm in Rhode Island in New Hampshire, where I normally live.

We're getting five to ten inches. Oh, all right. I'm in New York City, but in northwest New Jersey, where I normally live, we're getting about five inches. So winter's coming. Thank you, Ambassador. All the best. We'll look forward to seeing you next week.

Good. Thank you. Coming up at 11 this morning from London, former British diplomat, Ian Proud, at one o'clock, Colonel Karen Koukowski, at three o'clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.