PC: Aljazeera
WASHINGTON, December 1 (Reuters) – On Monday, the White House supported a U.S. admiral’s choice to carry out several strikes on a purported Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel in September, asserting that he had the authorization of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, despite critics raising concerns about the legality of targeting survivors. The Washington Post reported that a second strike was ordered to eliminate two survivors from the initial strike and to adhere to an order by Hegseth that everyone be killed.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump stated that he would not have desired a second strike on the boat and mentioned that Hegseth denied issuing such an order.
On Monday, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt stated that Hegseth had given Admiral Frank Bradley the authority to carry out the strikes on September 2. Admiral Bradley was authorized by Secretary Hegseth to carry out these kinetic strikes. “Admiral Bradley operated effectively within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt stated.
Leavitt stated that the strike was carried out in “self defense” to safeguard U.S. interests, occurred in international waters, and adhered to the law of armed conflict.
“This administration has classified these narco terrorists as foreign terrorist organizations,” Leavitt stated.
Beginning in September, the U.S. military has conducted a minimum of 19 strikes targeting suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean and along the Pacific coasts of Latin America, resulting in the deaths of at least 76 individuals.
Critics have raised concerns about the legality of the strikes, and lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties have committed to investigating the matter.
Attacks on incapacitated combatants are prohibited under international humanitarian law. The Law of War Manual from the Defense Department specifies that individuals who are shipwrecked cannot be intentionally targeted and are entitled to medical assistance unless they exhibit hostile behavior or try to flee.
According to Laura Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University, the majority of legal experts do not consider the boat strikes to constitute armed conflict, indicating that the use of lethal force would only be permissible as a final option.
“It would be considered murder outside of armed conflict,” she stated. Even in the context of war, the act of killing survivors “would likely be considered a war crime.”
A collective of ex-military attorneys, known as the JAGs Working Group, described the order as “patently illegal,” asserting that service members are obligated to disobey it and that those who comply should face prosecution for war crimes. On X, Hegseth praised Bradley, referring to him as “an American hero” and expressing his “100% support.” Hegseth expressed his unwavering support for Bradley’s combat decisions “regarding the September 2 mission and all subsequent operations.”
On Monday, Trump engaged in discussions with senior advisers regarding the pressure campaign targeting Venezuela, along with various other subjects, according to a high-ranking U.S. official.