Outrage sparked by killing of survivors amidst shaky legality of entire US 'drug boat' war

Graphic images showing two survivors being killed in a second US military strike on a Venezuelan vessel accused of drug trafficking have sparked public outrage that was largely absent before. The controversy intensified following a Washington Post report describing a deadly attack on a Caribbean boat carrying 11 people, where a follow-up strike reportedly targeted those who survived the first assault.

Since September, the US administration has launched repeated attacks on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific believed to transport illegal drugs to the United States, resulting in at least 81 deaths across more than 20 strikes. Officials have maintained that these actions are lawful under the rules of war, claiming that the US is engaged in armed conflict with traffickers allegedly aligned with Venezuelan leader Nicols Maduro.

Legal experts, however, have largely dismissed this justification, noting that the US is not in conflict with an armed group actively attacking its territory or assets abroad. The issue gained wider attention when it emerged that the first strike on September 2 was followed by a so-called second tap, allegedly to follow an order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to eliminate everyone onboard. The follow-up reportedly killed two survivors clinging to the vessel.

Concerns of potential war crimes or murder have prompted Republican-led Senate and House Armed Services Committees, previously supportive of the administration, to pledge investigations. Legal analysts emphasize that the strikes may violate long-standing laws of armed conflict, even if the administrations claims of war are accepted.

Rebecca Ingber, law professor at Cardozo School and former State Department adviser, explained, Even if these individuals are considered combatants, it is unlawful to kill them if they are hors de combat, meaning incapacitated. Killing shipwrecked individuals is a clear violation of the law of armed conflict. The Pentagons Law of War manual explicitly states that armed forces must protect those who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, and attacking them is prohibited. The manual also stresses that following orders to commit war law violations is illegal.

Historical precedents reinforce this principle. The 1950 Nuremberg Principles assert that individuals cannot escape liability for executing illegal orders, while US law rejects superior orders as a defense, as demonstrated in the My Lai massacre prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The administration has provided mixed explanations. President Trump distanced himself from the second strike, while Hegseth denied ordering the killing of survivors. Some officials claimed that Admiral Frank Bradley, who led the operation, targeted the disabled vessel and its cargo rather than the crew. Legal analysts argue that such claims raise further questions about compliance with war law and the treatment of survivors.

Geoffrey Corn, director at the Center for Military Law, highlighted the central issue: whether the second strike targeted the vessel or the crew. He questioned why survivors could not have been rescued before sinking the boat, suggesting that comparing drug boats to armed naval vessels does not justify lethal action against incapacitated individuals. Similarly, Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group warned that focusing solely on the second strike could obscure broader legal issues, as the overall campaign may be unlawful due to the absence of armed conflict.

Corn urged congressional inquiries into Admiral Bradleys actions, including what orders he received, the timing of instructions, the specific targets, and the decision to strike while survivors were in the water. If the roles were reversed, and our sailors were treated this way, public outrage would be immediate, he noted.

Author: Riley Thompson