The 'Threat' Used to Justify Killing 2 Boat Attack Survivors Was Purely Speculation

On Thursday, Adm. Frank M. Bradley briefed members of Congress on the reasoning behind his order for a second missile strike in the September 2 operation that launched President Donald Trump's lethal campaign against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The second strike killed two men who survived the initial attack. Just hours later, U.S. Southern Command disclosed yet another strike on a vessel, increasing the total number of attacks to 22 and the death toll to 87.

These developments have intensified concerns that debate over the second strike may overshadow the larger issue: whether Trumps assertion of an armed conflict with drug smugglerstreating criminal suspects as combatantscan legally reframe deadly force as self-defense. While Congress has shown renewed interest in the legality and ethics of the campaign, the focus is now on whether a single strike broke the laws of war rather than on the broader campaign itself.

Bradley defended his decision by claiming the two survivorsclinging to wreckage and later killed by a second missilestill posed a threat because they could have recovered and transported any remaining cocaine. Reports earlier suggested Bradley intended to reference radio communications between the survivors and others in their network. According to The Wall Street Journal, he believed nearby enemy boats could help the survivors continue their mission, making them legitimate targets.

However, congressional briefings revealed this supposed threat was purely hypothetical. Lawmakers viewed video footage that included both missile strikes, unlike the shorter version previously released to the public. Accounts from those present indicate the first strike nearly destroyed the vessel. When the smoke cleared half an hour later, the overturned front portion remained afloat with two shirtless men repeatedly trying to climb onto the hull, slipping back into the water each time.

Officials reportedly assumed the hull still held cocaine and believed the survivors might eventually reach Venezuela or be retrieved by another vessel. They also assumed the men could be communicating, despite the video showing no radios or satellite phones, and surveillance spotting no nearby boats.

Bradley relied on speculation to justify lethal force against two defenseless men struggling to stay alive. Sen. Tom Cotton called the strike righteous and highly lawful, claiming the survivors were trying to right the drug-laden boat to continue their operation. In reality, no fight was underway. The government has even argued the campaign doesn't count as hostilities under the War Powers Resolution because U.S. forces face no real dangeryet the people killed are labeled combatants.

This framing attempts to avoid classifying the men as shipwrecked civilians, which would make killing them a war crime. The Defense Departments Law of War Manual states that attacking the shipwrecked is illegal, defining them as helpless individuals in distress at sea who are not engaging in hostile acts. Bradley appears to have considered simply being near a damaged boat as hostile intent.

Trump initially expressed discomfort with the second strike but later agreed it was acceptable. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth likewise praised Bradley, saying he made the right decision to destroy the vessel and eliminate the supposed threat. A congressional inquiry followed a report claiming Bradley acted under the impression that Hegseth wanted everyone on board killedan order both later denied. Yet the policy itself implies no survivors are required when suspected smugglers are treated as combatants.

Legal scholars warn that focusing solely on whether the second strike was a war crime risks validating the administrations narrative of a wartime scenario. Rebecca Ingber of Cardozo School of Law noted that the rationale behind the second strike highlights the absurdity of equating drug transportation with wartime hostility. The broader campaign, she said, amounts to murder, regardless of how it is framed legally.

Author: Chloe Ramirez