For the past two weeks, concerning reports have circulated that the U.S. military deliberately targeted survivors of an initial attack on a suspected drug-trafficking boat on Sept. 2. The decision was allegedly made by Adm. Frank M. Bradley, acting on orders from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to leave no survivors from the first of what has since become a broader campaign of attacks against such boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. In addition to the media coverage, the revelations have attracted significant attention from Congress, with lawmakers from both parties demanding release of the full video of the attack and calling Bradley in for questioning. Meanwhile, the Trump administration denies giving such orders and is backpedaling to avoid the political fallout, despite having otherwise proudly trumpeted its lethal strikes against drug traffickers.
Why this particular issue, and why now? After all, the Trump administration’s campaign against small boats in the Caribbean had already attracted opprobrium for several months from human rights lawyers, U.S. allies and the even the United Nations. NPR reports that troops involved in the strikes are concerned about their personal liability. Adm. Alvin Holsey, the head of Southern Command, which oversees military operations in Latin America, abruptly announced his resignation in September, reportedly after raising similar concerns over the killings. This week, he formally retired earlier than planned.
These wider concerns go well beyond the question of the two survivors of the initial Sept. 2 strike, who were then killed by a second strike while clinging to the wreckage of their boat. Many legal analysts argue that because no state of war exists between the U.S. and Venezuela, the killings constitute outright murder in violation of international human rights law, which requires arrest and due process for criminal suspects.