In the Trump administration's opening salvo on Sept. 2 against ships it said were carrying cartel drugs to America, it ordered a lethal U.S. military strike.
But with two crew members clinging to the wreckage of the boat after the first missile hit, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley ordered a second strike to carry out Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's initial order, issued before the operation began, to “kill everyone,” according to a Nov. 28 Washington Post report.
That second strike, which could be considered illegal under international humanitarian law if it targeted surviving crew members, was confirmed at a briefing Tuesday by Pentagon spokesman Kingsley Wilson. Ms. Wilson said Mr. Hegseth authorized the first attack but did not say the words attributed to him by The Post. She did not comment directly on whether the second strike targeted survivors.
Why did we write this
While the Trump administration says its strikes on suspected drug ships in the Caribbean are legal, the actions raise questions about potential war crimes and prompt support for increased congressional oversight.
The strike is receiving the most scrutiny to date because of Trump's boating offensive.
Mr. Hegseth has defended the administration's strikes, including in a social media post last Friday in which he criticized the Biden administration's policies. This administration has “coddled terrorists,” he wrote. “We kill them.”
But on Monday night, Mr. Hegseth also appeared to distance himself from the September strike, which some lawmakers called a potential war crime, when he wrote that he supported Adm. Bradley “and the combative decisions he made.”
At a Pentagon press briefing on Tuesday, notable for the lack of pointed questions from reporters allowed into the room, Ms. Wilson repeated what Admiral Bradley did “re-strike decisionShe added that Mr. Hegseth “supports Adm. Bradley 100 percent.”
While the administration said Adm. Bradley acted “under clear and long-standing authority,” the statements raise concerns that the administration is hiding behind rather than supporting the U.S. military and is prioritizing the protection of its officials over the protection of service members. It also provides support for Congress to oversee the administration's attacks on suspected cartel vessels, something that has not been the case in other incidents. (More than 80 people have been killed in 21 strikes since September 2.)
In a rare bipartisan statement, Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Republican from Mississippi, and Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee's top Democrat, said they would “conduct active oversight to determine the facts.” The House Armed Services Committee said it would also open an investigation.
What is the difference between this “kill” order and other lethal boat strikes?
The Trump administration has said the U.S. is in an armed conflict with Venezuelan drug traffickers, calling them “narco-terrorists” and has said it could use the U.S. military to fight those battles.
US law allows troops to kill America's enemies during combat. But even some analysts who accept the Trump administration's argument that the US is essentially “at war” consider the subsequent September strike to be unlawful because it targeted people who were “out of line,” which in humanitarian law language means they are helpless and unable to fight. The Geneva Conventions, international treaties whose purpose is to limit the barbarity of war, provide that those who cannot take part in hostilities must be protected. This includes “the wounded, sick or shipwrecked.”
Pentagon officials reportedly told lawmakers that the second strike was intended to scuttle the ship so it would not interfere with the navigation of other ocean-going vessels.
Mr. Hegseth, in a social media post last Friday, called recent press reports “fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory reporting aimed at discrediting our incredible warriors.” He also called the boat strikes “highly effective,” intentionally “deadly” and “complying with the laws of armed conflict.”
What are the arguments surrounding the legality of second strike?
The Trump administration says it is acting in self-defense by destroying boats carrying illegal drugs into the U.S. that are killing Americans, and has vowed to continue boat strikes.
Mr. Hegseth also described the boat attacks as “kinetic” strikes, which appeared to be in line with his strategy of achieving “maximum lethality” and his pledge to continue to resist what he called restrictive rules of engagement. Later on Tuesday, at a cabinet meeting, Mr. Hegseth further defended the subsequent September strike, saying the boat “exploded in fire, smoke, you can't see anything… It's called the fog of war.” He said he “didn't wait” for a second strike, but that the commanding admiral “made the right choice.”
Regardless of whether the US is in armed conflict with the cartels, “intentionally targeting defenseless people” is prohibited by international and domestic US law, he says. background document published 29 November. a group of former U.S. military lawyers known as JAGs, or Judge Advocate Generals.
Beyond the Geneva Conventions, international law not only prohibits the killing of survivors, but also “requires attacking forces to protect, rescue, and, if applicable, treat them as prisoners of war. Violation of these obligations constitutes a war crime, murder, or both,” writes the Former JAG Working Group, which includes 40 to 50 former U.S. military lawyers.
The group was founded in February after the Trump administration fired several senior JAG members. Last weekend, after the Washington Post article was published, “several more members” joined, said retired Maj. Gen. Stephen Lepper, the group's founder.
“We believe that the orders given – and the orders that were carried out throughout what we call the 'kill chain' – were unlawful,” he says. “They should not have been given, they should not have been obeyed, and those who gave and obeyed these orders must be held accountable.”
Senior officers have a duty to refuse orders they consider illegal, Mr Lepper argues. And junior service members pulling the trigger should still be “very concerned,” he adds.
“They were let down by the chain of command,” he says. “If the facts are correct, then a huge burden was placed on junior staff.” [to carry out the strikes] “a burden they should not have had to bear.”
Is Mr. Hegseth's job at risk?
President Donald Trump said Mr. Hegseth told him he did not order all crew members killed in the Sept. 2 missile attack, “and I believe him 100 percent.”
The president also said Sunday that he “wouldn't want” a second strike. “The first strike was very fatal. Everything was fine.”
White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt confirmed on Monday that the second strike took place on September 2. She also said that Admiral Bradley ordered this.
“The admiral was within clear and long-standing authority,” Ms. Wilson said, reading a prepared statement to Pentagon reporters on Tuesday. The press briefing was notable for its lack of what would traditionally be harsh questioning from the mainstream media, which abandoned the Pentagon press corps after refusing to submit to scrutiny of their reporting by the Trump administration.
At the time of the Sept. 2 strikes, Admiral Bradley led the Joint Special Operations Command, which carries out some of the most critical missions of the U.S. military. In the following weeks, the admiral began to lead the US Special Operations Command. The position was proposed by President Trump and confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate.
By emphasizing the admiral's role, the administration this week may be distancing itself from the strike decision. It comes as leading Democratic and Republican lawmakers express concerns that any such second strike during the September operation, as described in the press, would be a clear violation of the laws of war.
“Obviously, if this were to happen, it would be very serious, and I agree that it would be an illegal act,” Rep. Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on CBS's “Face the Nation.”
It would also be “completely beyond anything that was discussed with Congress,” he added.
Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said on CBS that the attack, if accurately reported, “would rise to the level of a war crime.”
Admiral Bradley is expected to be on Capitol Hill on Thursday to answer questions at a classified briefing. Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat who last month posted a video of five other lawmakers reminding the U.S. military that it could refuse illegal orders – an action that President Trump said made lawmakers traitors – called for an investigation.
“If there is anyone who needs to answer questions publicly and under oath,” Senator Kelly said at a press conference on Monday, “it is Pete Hegseth.”
