Key Takeaways
- Two survivors of a U.S. military attack on a vessel clung to the wreckage for roughly 45 minutes before a second strike killed them.
- The follow-up strike was ordered by Adm. Frank Bradley, who claimed that the shipwrecked men and the fragment of the boat still posed a threat.
- Secretary of War Pete Hegseth distanced himself from the follow-up strike, citing the "fog of war" as justification.
- Rep. Adam Smith and other lawmakers have criticized the strikes as unlawful and unjustified, arguing that the survivors did not pose an imminent threat.
- The U.S. military has carried out 22 known attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September, killing at least 87 civilians.
Introduction to the Incident
The U.S. military attacked a vessel on September 2, resulting in the deaths of two survivors who clung to the wreckage for roughly 45 minutes before a second strike killed them. According to three government sources and a senior lawmaker, Adm. Frank Bradley, then head of Joint Special Operations Command, ordered the follow-up strike, which was first reported by The Intercept in September. The incident has raised questions about the legality and justification of the strikes, with lawmakers and experts arguing that the survivors did not pose an imminent threat.
The Follow-up Strike and Justification
Bradley claimed that he conducted multiple strikes because the shipwrecked men and the fragment of the boat still posed a threat, according to the sources. However, this justification has been disputed by lawmakers and experts, who argue that the survivors were not a threat and that the strikes were unlawful. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth also distanced himself from the follow-up strike, citing the "fog of war" as justification. However, Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that Hegseth provided misleading information and that the video shared with lawmakers showed the reality in stark light.
Analysis of the Incident
The incident has been criticized by lawmakers and experts, who argue that the strikes were unlawful and unjustified. Rep. Adam Smith said that the video showed two survivors clinging to the wreckage, with no signs of them posing a threat. "You had two shipwrecked people on the top of the tiny little bit of the boat that was left that was capsized. They weren’t signaling to anybody. And the idea that these two were going to be able to return to the fight — even if you accept all of the questionable legal premises around this mission, around these strikes — it’s still very hard to imagine how these two were returning to any sort of fight in that condition," Smith said. The sources also confirmed that roughly 45 minutes elapsed between the first and second strikes, with no time constraints or pressure on the U.S. forces.
Claims of Drug Trafficking and Justification
Bradley claimed that he believed there was cocaine in the quarter of the boat that remained afloat, and that the survivors could have drifted to land or to a rendezvous point with another vessel, meaning that the alleged drug traffickers still had the ability to transport a deadly weapon — cocaine — into the United States. However, none of the three sources who spoke to The Intercept said there was any evidence of this. Sen. Tom Cotton also echoed this premise, telling reporters that the additional strikes on the vessel were warranted because the shipwrecked men were "trying to flip a boat, loaded with drugs bound for the United States, back over so they could stay in the fight." However, this claim has been disputed by the sources, who said that the survivors were not trying to flip the boat and were not a threat.
Legal Implications and Criticisms
The incident has raised questions about the legality of the strikes, with experts and lawmakers arguing that the U.S. military is not permitted to deliberately target civilians — even suspected criminals — who do not pose an imminent threat of violence. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has produced a classified opinion intended to shield service members from prosecution, but this has been criticized by experts and lawmakers. Sarah Harrison, who previously advised Pentagon policymakers on issues related to human rights and the law of war, said that the people in the boat weren’t in any fight to begin with. "They didn’t pose an imminent threat to U.S. forces or the lives of others. There was no lawful justification to kill them in the first place let alone the second strike," she said.
Conclusion and Ongoing Controversy
The incident has sparked controversy and debate, with lawmakers and experts criticizing the strikes as unlawful and unjustified. The U.S. military has carried out 22 known attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September, killing at least 87 civilians. The most recent attack occurred in the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, killing four people. The controversy surrounding the strikes is likely to continue, with lawmakers and experts calling for greater transparency and accountability from the U.S. military. The incident has also raised questions about the use of force and the protection of human rights, and has sparked a wider debate about the role of the U.S. military in the region.
