Senator Mark Kelly’s recent interview with Jon Stewart has ignited a fierce debate surrounding U.S. military operations at sea, drawing critical questions about the legality of recent strikes. As a former astronaut and Navy veteran, Kelly found himself on shaky ground defending the justification of maritime actions that many view as violations of legal and ethical norms.
During the exchange, Kelly insisted, “We’ve got a 40-page legal memo that explains how it’s legal.” This response, however, did little to quell the scrutiny. Stewart’s relentless questioning raised pivotal issues: could these strikes, which targeted alleged drug traffickers in international waters, equate to extrajudicial killings? This concept haunted both the Obama and Trump administrations while showcasing the troubling consistency of executive overreach in military affairs.
Operation Southern Spear, conducted between September and December 2025, drew significant fire for its controversial tactics. The U.S. Navy reportedly destroyed over 36 boats and killed at least 115 individuals, with allegations surfacing of double tapping…where survivors were struck again even after their vessels were disabled. Legal experts have warned that firing at defenseless individuals, like shipwreck survivors, not only breaches ethical standards but could classify such actions as war crimes.
The weight of historical precedent looms large in this discourse. Stewart’s commentary about the Obama administration’s drone strikes—specifically, the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki—brought to light a broader pattern in U.S. military actions. While the administration justified these strikes under the pretext of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, many criticized them as unlawful extrajudicial killings since the individuals targeted were not formally charged.
Kelly’s assertion about the legality of Operation Southern Spear echoes similar rhetoric from the Obama era, suggesting a troubling inconsistency where legality is claimed only when politically beneficial. Stewart’s sharp comparison exposes a vulnerability in Kelly’s position, as he must reconcile his support for military actions that may indeed defy international law with his calls for respecting legal protocols within the military.
Critics assert that simply “following orders” is a dangerous rationale, especially when such orders could lead to serious legal ramifications. Article 33 of the Rome Statute stipulates a military duty to refuse orders that are manifestly illegal, a principle that hangs heavily over service members involved in these operations. Legal scholars warn that engagement in actions like those described could leave military personnel exposed to prosecution in international courts.
The implications extend into international relations as well. Allies have begun reevaluating their intelligence-sharing relationships with the U.S. over concerns regarding legal conduct in these maritime operations. The potential fallout not only jeopardizes operational alliances but emboldens adversaries by showcasing weaknesses in the system of accountability.
Domestically, the issue has sparked a strong response from military-affiliated lawmakers. In a video urging service members to reject illegal orders, Kelly’s rhetoric clashes with his defense of actions taken during Operation Southern Spear. His comment that breaches of law would be “a gross breach of the law” puts him at odds with the narrative he seeks to uphold. Legal experts suggest that he, along with others in similar positions, may be forced to confront the consequences of endorsing policies that contradict their stated principles.
The public discourse around these operations and their justifications has only intensified, with at least 115 lives lost. Eyewitness accounts suggest that not all those casualties were engaged traffickers; many are reported to be local fishermen or individuals coerced into risky jobs. In one disturbing instance, survivors were allegedly targeted after their boat was sunk by a U.S. missile, raising significant moral and legal questions about the limits of acceptable military action.
This discussion goes beyond mere legality; it probes at the heart of American power and its legitimacy on the world stage. If the U.S. sidesteps established conventions of warfare for expedient military goals, its moral authority stands in jeopardy. The issue of accountability looms large, especially for officials like Senator Kelly, whose rhetoric endorses legal compliance while their policies may suggest otherwise.
As Stewart confronted Kelly with a pointed inquiry—“What’s the Constitution worth if we’re writing exceptions into the margin every time it’s inconvenient?”—it encapsulates the growing frustration among Americans regarding the erosion of established legal and ethical standards in military conduct. The exchange not only highlighted the controversy of Operation Southern Spear but underscored a pressing demand for accountability and adherence to the rule of law in U.S. military operations.
"*" indicates required fields
