Name: 皮特·海因塞斯使用 Signal 哈拉可能危及部隊安全，五角大廈監督機構警告 | BBC 新聞 (Pete Hegseth could have endangered troop safety with Signal chat says Pentagon watchdog | BBC News)
Uploaded: 2025-12-04T16:55:02.000Z
Duration: 7 min 59 s

情態助動詞 B1

Independent Pentagon watchdog has found that the defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, could have endangered the lives of American troops when he used the messaging app Signal to discuss a planned US Attack on militants in Yemen.

五角大廈的獨立監督單位發現，國防部長 Pete Hegseth 在使用 Signal 即時通訊應用程式討論計畫中的美國襲擊葉門武裝分子時，可能危及了美軍的生命。

But the inspector general's office concluded that Pete Hegseth did not violate rules on classified material.

但監察長的辦公室結論是，Pete Hegseth 並沒有違反關於機密資料的規定。

Well, the investigation looked into the unwitting inclusion of a journalist and in a chat group that was discussing those American airstrikes on Yemen.

好的，這項調查是針對一名記者無意間被納入一個討論美國襲擊葉門空襲的群組哈拉。

So let's get more on this with CBS News, Jared Hill in New York.

好了，我們請到紐約的 CBS News 記者 Jared Hill 來為我們報導更多。

Jared, just remind us what this is all about and why Pete Hegseth was in trouble over this.

Jared，請提醒我們一下，這整件事是關於什麼，以及為什麼 Pete Hegseth 會因為這件事惹上麻煩。

So the big question here, Ben, is whether Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, was using an improper application, improper device to talk about whether it's secret or classified information on this.

所以，Ben，這裡最大的問題是，國防部長 Pete Hegseth 是否使用了不當應用程式、不當裝置來談論，無論是祕密資訊還是機密資訊。

And what this inspector general found is that in this text chain, this group, chat chain, on the messaging app Signal back in the spring of this year that they say that he was, in fact, violating DoD policy because he was using his personal phone to discuss information that had been marked secret, although not necessarily classified.

而監察長發現，在這個今年春天文字鏈、群組、哈拉鏈，在 Signal 即時通訊應用程式上，他們說他確實違反了國防部政策，因為他使用個人手機討論標記為祕密的資訊，儘管不一定是機密資訊。

Now, one of the big questions is whether Pete Hegseth declassified some of this information on his own before it was shared in this messaging application.

現在，其中一個大問題是，Pete Hegseth 是否在分享到這個即時通訊應用程式之前，自行解密了部分資訊。

Big picture, though, they say that the messaging and the words that he was using on the platform that he was using it potentially could have put military members at risk of some kind of danger.

不過，總體來看，他們說他使用的訊息內容以及在該平臺上使用的文字，有可能讓軍事人員面臨某種危險。

What we're seeing in terms of response and reaction, though, is Pete Hegseth saying that this exonerates him, basically saying that he didn't do anything wrong with this one.

不過，就我們看到的反應和回應來說，Pete Hegseth 認為這件事讓他清白了，基本上是說他在這件事上沒有做錯任何事。

And it seems, at least as of now, the White House is still backing him.

而且看來，至少到目前為止，白宮仍在支持他。

Yeah, and I was going to ask you, I mean, you know, he's such a controversial, polarizing figure.

對，我本來想問你，我是說，你知道，他是一個這麼有爭議、這麼兩極化的人物。

Pete Hag said, how, how damaging do you think this is then?

Pete Hegseth 說，你認為這有多大的損害？

Or does he think that, as you say, it has exonerated him?

或者，就像你說的，他認為這件事已經讓他清白了嗎？

The White House is also saying that this is basically clearing Pete Hegseth as well.

白宮也說，這基本上也讓 Pete Hegseth 清白了。

But he is currently embroiled in this as well as another scandal, essentially, that is taking a lot of attention away from some of the other things that he potentially could be doing.

但目前他捲入了這件事，還有另一個醜聞，基本上，這轉移了他原本可以做的其他事情很多注意力。

Obviously, today there is also the ongoing investigation into the drill or into the strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and whether some of this was a war crime, which some members of both parties in Congress are alleging.

顯然，今天還有關於在加勒比海對涉嫌毒品船隻進行演習或襲擊的持續調查，以及一些國會兩黨成員聲稱這是否構成戰爭罪。

Pete Hegseth has been a very effective communicator for President Trump, someone that President Trump handpicked, that President Trump likes A lot, it seems.

Pete Hegseth 一直是川普總統非常有效的溝通者，是川普總統親自挑選、似乎非常喜歡的人。

And so a big question is, will any of this dampen that relationship as there are calls for Hegseth to resign from at least Democrats in Congress.

所以一個大問題是，這一切會不會削弱這段關係，因為國會中的民主黨人至少呼籲 Hegseth 辭職。

And as Jared was just mentioning there, that whole signal chat controversy is a bit of a further embarrassment for Pete Hegseth, who has been strongly criticized, as Jared was mentioning, over the deadly strikes as President Trump alleged trafficking boats in the Caribbean.

正如 Jared 剛才提到的，整個 Signal 群組哈拉爭議對 Pete Hegseth 來說是另一種尷尬，正如 Jared 提到的，他因川普總統聲稱在加勒比海的販運船隻而遭受致命襲擊的嚴厲批評。

Now, one such incident on September, September 2nd has become the focal point of controversy.

現在，其中一起事件發生在九月，九月二日，已成為爭議的焦點。

That's when an initial strike on a so called narco boat or an alleged trafficking boat left two survivors clinging to the burning vessel before a second strike, then killed both of those survivors.

那時，對一艘所謂的毒梟船或一艘涉嫌販運的船隻的初步襲擊，造成兩名倖存者在燃燒的船上掙扎，然後第二次襲擊殺死了這兩名倖存者。

Now, Democrats say that the allegations first reported by the Washington Post newspaper could amount in fact to a war crime.

現在，民主黨人說，《華盛頓郵報》首先報導的這些指控實際上可能構成戰爭罪。

And Republicans have also voiced their concerns about it.

共和黨人也對此表達了他們的擔憂。

So let's talk about this now to Liz Goodwin, who's national political report for the Washington Post.

那麼，我們現在來談談這件事，請教《華盛頓郵報》的國家政治記者 Liz Goodwin。

Well, we're just hearing about Pete Hegseth with the whole signal row.

好，我們剛聽到 Pete Hegseth 和 Signal 的相關風波。

How much trouble is he and do you think over this controversy?

他和這場爭議會惹上多少麻煩？

This is something that's really troubling lawmakers of both parties, which is a little bit rare on the Hill to see Republican lawmakers openly questioning Trump administration officials.

這件事讓兩黨的議員都感到非常困擾，這在國會裡有點少見，竟然看到共和黨議員公開質疑川普政府官員。

And this is one issue that has galvanize that type of reaction.

而這件事確實激起了這類反應。

So today Admiral Bradley, who was the officer in charge of this second strike, is going to be coming to Congress and answering questions from Republicans and Democrats on this strike.

所以今天，負責這次二次襲擊的指揮官 Bradley 海軍上將將會到國會，回答共和黨和民主黨議員關於這次襲擊的問題。

Hegseth, Defense Secretary Hegseth has sort of changed his answer a little bit on if he was around for that second strike.

Hegseth，國防部長 Hegseth 在二次襲擊時是否在場這件事上，他的說法有點改變了。

At first it sounded like he said he watched the whole thing live.

一開始聽起來他說他全程 live 觀看。

And then once questions emerged about this second strike where survivors were allegedly killed, he then said he wasn't there for that and he had left and he had another meeting.

然後一旦出現關於二次襲擊、倖存者據稱被殺的問題，他就說他當時不在場，他已經離開了，還有別的會議。

And so Bradley, Admiral Bradley is the person that's really facing the heat now and has to answer questions about it.

所以 Bradley 海軍上將現在是真正面臨壓力、必須回答問題的人。

And one of the questions that emerged when Pete Hegseth gave that quite detailed account of what happened and saying he was there for the first strike but not the second strike was he said after the first strike the vessel in question was actually on fire and there was a fog of war which then raised questions from some people about why, why did the military need another strike on that vessel if it was already on fire?

而當 Pete Hegseth 詳述當時情況，並說他參與了第一次襲擊但沒參與第二次襲擊時，一個浮現的問題是，他說第一次襲擊後，目標船隻其實已經著火了，而且戰況迷霧重重，這就引發了一些人質疑，為什麼軍方需要對一艘已經著火的船隻進行二次襲擊？

Yeah, there's a bit of confusion right now in terms of was the objective to kill everyone on board even when they had had, you know, were clinging to wreckage essentially, were not on the boat or was the objective to destroy the vessel.

沒錯，現在有點混亂，到底目標是要殺死船上所有人，即使他們已經在殘骸上掙扎、根本不在船上，還是目標是要摧毀船隻。

And apparent different objectives have different kind of legal weights behind them in terms of what's acceptable.

顯然不同的目標，在法律上會有不同的份量，關於什麼是可接受的。

So that's something that people are eagerly looking forward to hearing what Admiral Bradley says.

所以這就是大家都在熱切期待聽到 Bradley 海軍上將怎麼說。

And there is just also the question of a sort of wider American potential military operation with Venezuela, isn't there?

而且也有關於美國在委內瑞拉可能進行更廣泛軍事行動的問題，不是嗎？

The American Donald Trump's talked about, you know, a war, not only a war on drugs, not only at sea, but

美國的唐納·川普談到，你知道，不只是在海上，不只是毒品戰爭，

There is yesterday, I think it was, that President Trump said, you know, we're going to continue these strikes and we might even do them on land.

昨天，我想是昨天，川普總統說，你知道，我們會繼續這些襲擊，甚至可能在陸地上進行。

He's also been urging Maduro, the president there, to leave the country.

他也一直在敦促那裡的總統馬杜羅離開這個國家。

There's a desire for a regime change that I think some Republican hawks support, but

有一種想要政權更迭的願望，我想有些共和黨鷹派支持，但是

it's not, it's not getting that same type of support that we usually see.

這並沒有獲得我們通常看到的那種支持。

Like on the Iran strikes, for example, when he struck the nuclear facilities, there was really this rallying excitement among hawks in the party.

就像伊朗的襲擊，例如，當他攻擊核設施時，黨內的鷹派確實出現了團結的興奮感。

And this time there, it's just a little bit more muted, I would say.

而這次，我會說，感覺比較平淡一些。

And then on the America first, more isolationist wing of the party, there's really open questions of the president's strategy here, more directed at Secretary Hegseth instead of President Trump.

然後在黨內「美國優先」更孤立主義的派別中，大家對總統的策略有公開的質疑，更多是針對國防部長Hegseth，而不是川普總統。

But there is not that enthusiasm for a foreign entanglement here in some wings of the party.

但是，黨內的一些派別對外國的糾纏並沒有那樣的熱情。

And just in terms of those attacks on these alleged drug trafficking boats, what are what ordinary Americans do you think make of that?

至於對這些所謂的販毒船發動的襲擊，你認為一般的美國人對此有什麼看法？

Because as you were saying, a lot of concern in Congress about the legality of these military strikes.

因為正如你所說，國會對這些軍事打擊的合法性有很多擔憂。

But, but do they generally have popular support, do you think, in America?

但是，你認為它們在美國普遍獲得民眾支持嗎？

我不確定這是否已經被民調過。

But I think that most Americans probably see strikes on drug boats as different than a potential war.

但我認為大多數美國人可能認為對販毒船的襲擊與潛在的戰爭不同。

It's, you know, if it's just defined as killing drug traffickers, that might have support because the actual issues around the legality of it are a little bit higher brow.

因為你知道，如果只是定義為擊斃毒販，那可能會獲得支持，因為關於其合法性的實際問題比較高深。

Liz Goodwin, the national political reporter for the Washington Post.

華盛頓郵報的國家政治記者 Liz Goodwin。