Lawmakers clash over whether the Pentagon’s airstrike on a drug boat violated international law
A deadly airstrike on a boat in the Caribbean has sparked a wave of political outrage and debate over whether US military actions violated international law. The attack, which occurred in September, killed 11 people and followed a series of military strikes on vessels allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela to the United States. On Thursday, US lawmakers were briefed behind closed doors by senior military leaders, including Admiral Frank Bradley, who commanded the operation, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine. Their testimony, accompanied by video footage of the incident, has further fuelled controversy.
The initial reports, amplified by the Washington Post, accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of verbally instructing military forces to “kill them all,” referring to the survivors of the initial strike. However, during the closed-door briefing, both Bradley and Caine denied that such an order had been given. “Admiral Bradley confirmed there was no ‘kill them all’ order, and there was no order to grant no quarter,” said Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, after the meeting. He described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
Despite the clarifications, Himes was deeply disturbed by the footage of the second strike, which killed two survivors of the initial bombing. “Two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, were killed by the United States,” Himes said. He added, “Any American who sees the video that I saw will see the United States military attacking shipwrecked sailors.”
A Defense of the Strikes
Republican Senator Tom Cotton defended the operation, calling the strikes “righteous.” He suggested that the survivors were attempting to resume their mission and argued that the US military was justified in striking the vessel. “I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs back over so they could stay in the fight,” Cotton explained. He also pointed out that other “narco-terrorists” in the area could have been coming to rescue them, further justifying the decision to carry out the second strike.
Cotton’s view contrasted sharply with Himes’ interpretation, as the Democratic congressman stressed that the survivors appeared incapable of continuing their mission. He insisted that these individuals were not in a position to be considered combatants, especially given their dire circumstances after the initial bombing.
Legal and Moral Questions
The legality of such strikes and the ethical implications of killing survivors have become a point of contention. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for further investigations into the attack. “This briefing confirmed my worst fears about the nature of the Trump administration’s military activities,” Reed said, echoing concerns about a lack of transparency surrounding the operation. He urged the release of the full video to allow for greater public scrutiny.
The Pentagon’s refusal to release the video has only heightened tensions. A spokesperson for the White House, responding to the incident earlier this week, denied that Hegseth personally ordered the killings but stood by the actions taken by the military, defending the decision to target the boats as part of the broader anti-drug campaign.
A Deadly Campaign
The bombing occurred as part of an ongoing US initiative to stop drug shipments from Venezuela, which US officials claim are used to fund organized crime groups and pose a direct threat to American national security. Former President Donald Trump has staunchly supported the strikes, arguing that those operating the boats were complicit in trying to harm Americans. Despite this, critics are questioning whether the attacks are legal under international law, particularly in light of civilian casualties.
This case marks just the latest chapter in the contentious debate over the legality of military actions taken during the Trump administration, especially concerning operations targeting alleged drug trafficking boats in international waters.
With bipartisan concern continuing to grow over the use of force in such scenarios, lawmakers are now calling for more accountability from the military and greater transparency in the process. As the debate intensifies, the focus now shifts to the Pentagon’s next steps and whether they will release the full, unedited footage of the controversial strike.
