Commander Defends Killing 2 Survivors in Boat Attack for Attempting to Smuggle Cocaine

The U.S. government has argued that if a cocaine trafficker is labeled an unlawful combatant in an alleged armed struggle against the United States, lethal force can be used even when that person is unarmed and poses no immediate danger. That interpretation underpinned a highly controversial operation on September 2 in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which marked the beginning of President Donald Trumps intensified anti-drug campaign in the region.

Admiral Frank M. Bradley, who led the mission, was aware that an initial missile strike on a suspected smuggling vessel killed nine people but left two individuals alive in the water. According to officials cited by major U.S. media outlets, the surviving men clung to pieces of the burning wreckage and used a radio to contact associates linked to a drug-trafficking network. Interpreting this communication as an attempt to continue the smuggling operation, Bradley authorized a second missile strike that killed both survivors.

Unnamed U.S. officials have stated that the additional strike was meant to ensure that any remaining cocaine on the crippled vessel could not be recovered. However, legal and military experts quickly condemned the action. Former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, Michael Schmitt, described the killing of people adrift at sea as clearly unlawful, emphasizing that lethal force is only justified in the face of an imminent threat.

The Pentagons own law-of-war manual explicitly states that firing upon shipwrecked individuals is illegal. People in the water are considered shipwrecked when they are distressed, helpless, and in need of assistance, as long as they are not engaging in hostile acts. Bradley has argued that the two survivors did not qualify for that protection because their radio transmission showed they were still taking part in criminal activity.

This reasoning highlights the difficulty of applying the laws of armed conflict to operations that are not part of a formally recognized war. President Trump has repeatedly described drug trafficking as an armed attack on the United States, equating criminal smuggling with acts of warfare. In practice, however, these operations target individuals whose primary connection to the U.S. is supplying illegal narcotics to American consumers.

The administration has long criticized traditional methods such as interception and arrest as ineffective. By classifying drug smugglers as enemy combatants in a so-called non-international armed conflict, the White House has sought to justify direct, lethal military action without congressional authorization or judicial process.

According to reports, the targeted boat had turned around after its crew apparently noticed a military aircraft monitoring it. It was not attacking U.S. assets and did not resist. Similar strikes have since destroyed additional suspected smuggling vessels, resulting in dozens more deaths. Government lawyers have even claimed these assaults do not qualify as hostilities under the War Powers Resolution because American personnel faced little to no danger.

Military officials later intercepted radio messages that they believed indicated the two survivors were attempting to arrange recovery of any remaining drugs. On that basis, the armed forces concluded that the men were still in the fight, even though no exchange of fire or combat situation was actually taking place.

Members of Congress who were shown footage of the operation reacted with alarm. Representative Jim Himes described the images as deeply disturbing, noting that the two individuals were clearly stranded, immobile, and in distress at the time they were killed.

Lawmakers began investigating the incident after reports suggested that Bradley may have acted under the belief that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered that no one on the boat be left alive. Hegseth has denied issuing such an instruction, saying he was not initially aware that anyone survived the first strike and only learned of the second later. He nonetheless defended the ultimate decision to destroy the boat, calling it the elimination of a threat.

President Trump initially said he would not have wanted a second strike, but soon shifted his position, publicly supporting the destruction of the boats and those operating them. He stated that the individuals involved were responsible for harming Americans through drug distribution and framed the entire campaign as a form of war.

Critics argue that calling drug smuggling an act of war does not make it so, and that redefining criminals as combatants does not grant legal authority to execute them without trial. Rather than debating the technical legality of one particular strike, they say Congress should examine whether the administrations redefinition of reality is being used to justify unlawful killing under the guise of self-defense.

Author: Natalie Monroe