A U.S. Navy admiral told Congress he received no “kill them all” order before executing a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to wreckage in Caribbean waters, but lawmakers who viewed the classified video footage described it as among the most disturbing military operations they have witnessed.
Story Highlights
- Admiral Frank Bradley defended a second strike on boat survivors, claiming they remained active threats via radio communications
- Congressional lawmakers emerged from classified briefings describing video footage as showing U.S. forces killing shipwrecked sailors
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denies giving unlawful orders but supports the decision to eliminate all threats
- Legal experts suggest the follow-up strike may constitute a war crime under international maritime law
- The September 2nd Caribbean operation targeted suspected cocaine smugglers but has sparked bipartisan congressional concern
Admiral Defends Double-Strike Decision
Admiral Frank Bradley testified before Congress that survivors of the initial missile strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel remained legitimate military targets. Bradley argued the two men clinging to the disabled boat continued coordinating smuggling operations through radio communications, making them active combatants rather than protected shipwrecked persons under international law.
The September 2nd Caribbean operation began as a routine counter-narcotics mission but escalated when Bradley ordered kinetic strikes against the vessel. After the initial attack left survivors in the water, a second strike eliminated what Bradley characterized as an ongoing operational threat.
Lawmakers Express Alarm Over Classified Footage
Members of Congress who viewed the complete video sequence in classified briefings emerged with stark assessments of the military action. Representative Jim Himes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, described the footage as depicting American forces attacking shipwrecked sailors, a characterization that carries serious legal implications under maritime warfare laws.
The video shown to lawmakers apparently contained multiple strikes beyond the single attack President Trump previously shared publicly. Some reports indicate as many as four separate strikes occurred during the engagement, raising questions about the completeness of initial administration disclosures regarding the operation’s scope and intensity.
Legal Questions Surround Maritime Rules of Engagement
Military law experts emphasize that shipwrecked persons who refrain from hostile acts receive protection under both U.S. military doctrine and international humanitarian law. The Defense Department’s own Law of War Manual explicitly prohibits targeting individuals in distress at sea unless they pose an imminent threat through active hostile conduct.
Former military lawyers have described the follow-up strike as potentially unlawful if the survivors posed no immediate danger. The critical legal question centers on whether continued radio communication constitutes active hostile behavior or merely distress signaling, a distinction that could determine criminal liability under war crimes statutes.
