A recent testimony from a US Navy admiral has clarified that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not issue the controversial order to “kill them all” during a military engagement involving a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean. This revelation came from multiple lawmakers following a closed-door briefing with Admiral Frank Bradley regarding the incident that occurred on September 2.
Details of the incident and ongoing inquiries
During the classified hearings held at the US Capitol, lawmakers were shown footage of the double strike operation, which has raised significant legal and ethical questions about the use of military force against suspected drug trafficking vessels. The White House has since affirmed that Admiral Bradley was in command of the strikes and acted within the bounds of the law.
On Thursday evening, the US military announced another operation in the eastern Pacific Ocean that resulted in the deaths of four individuals, executed under Hegseth’s direction. Lawmakers expressed their concerns regarding the implications of such actions. Jim Himes, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, praised Admiral Bradley but conveyed that the testimony he witnessed was among the most troubling he has encountered in his public service career. Himes commented, “Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way.”
Calls for transparency and further investigation
Following the briefing, Representative Adam Smith, alongside Himes, issued a joint statement advocating for the public release of the recorded video from the classified session, asserting that the briefing raised more questions than it answered. Senator Tom Cotton, the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the actions of Admiral Bradley and Hegseth, asserting they acted in accordance with military expectations. He noted, “I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound to the United States back over so they could stay in the fight.”
Conversely, Senator Jack Reed expressed his unease over the situation, emphasizing the necessity for continued scrutiny by Congress. The dual strikes executed on September 2, especially the subsequent attack on survivors, have ignited discussions on the legality of such military strategies, particularly regarding the treatment of wounded individuals under international law.
“The briefing left us with more questions than answers, and Congress must continue to investigate this matter and conduct oversight,” they said.
President Donald Trump has indicated he is unconcerned about the release of the second strike’s video, which has yet to be made public. Reports indicate that two individuals survived the initial strike and attempted to reboard their vessel before the second strike occurred. Admiral Bradley is anticipated to assert that the survivors were deemed legitimate targets due to the presence of drugs on their boat.
The September 2 strike marked the beginning of a series of military operations that have reportedly resulted in over 80 fatalities across the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Despite assurances from US officials regarding the legality of the operation, the complete circumstances surrounding the event remain murky. Allegations have emerged suggesting that a second strike was ordered by Hegseth, which he has vehemently denied, labeling the reports as “fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory.” The White House has since clarified that Admiral Bradley was the one who authorized the second strike.
As debates continue over the legality and morality of these military actions, there are growing concerns about the implications for civilians and the legal status of individuals involved in drug trafficking. Experts have raised significant issues regarding the legality of targeting individuals who may be considered non-combatants under international law, questioning whether such military actions could be classified as crimes against humanity.
A family member of one victim, Alejandro Carranza, who is believed to have been killed in the strikes, has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, emphasizing the ongoing implications of these military operations and the need for accountability.