The pair of men slain while adrift clinging to their capsized vessel in a subsequent assault against an alleged drug ship in early September did not appear to possess radio or other communication apparatuses, the principal military officer supervising the attack informed legislators on Thursday, according to three informants with firsthand familiarity regarding his congressional debriefings.
As early as September, defense personnel have been quietly countering disapproval that eliminating the two survivors constituted a violation of the laws of war by asserting, partly, that they were valid objectives since they seemed to be signaling for aid or support — reinforcements that, had they been received, might have conceivably enabled them to continue dispensing the narcotics aboard their sinking craft.
Defense personnel presented that assertion in a minimum of one session in September for congressional aides, per an informant privy to the meeting, and several media outlets quoted officials repeating that rationale in the past week.
However, on Thursday, Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley conceded that the two remnants of the armed forces’ initial strike were in no condition to issue a distress signal during his discussions with legislators. Bradley oversaw the Joint Special Operations Command at the juncture of the strike and was the highest-ranking military figure directing the offensive.
The opening hit on the watercraft, presumed to transport cocaine, caused the immediate deaths of nine individuals and parted the boat in two, capsizing it and sending a tremendous cloud of smoke into the air, the informants who reviewed the footage as part of the briefings related. A segment of the monitoring video featured a magnified, sharper-definition look at the two survivors holding onto a still-buoyant, overturned section, they mentioned.
For slightly less than an hour — 41 minutes, according to a separate US official — Bradley and the remainder of the US military command center deliberated on a course of action while observing the men strive to upright what remained of their boat, the sources stated.
Navy Admiral Frank Bradley (middle) enters a private classified conference with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday in Washington, DC.
Navy Admiral Frank Bradley (middle) enters a private classified conference with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday in Washington, DC. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Ultimately, Bradley advised legislators that he authorized a second strike to annihilate the remnants of the vessel, causing the demise of the two survivors, on the premise that it appeared a portion of the ship remained afloat because it still held cocaine, according to one of the informants. The survivors might hypothetically have drifted to safety, been aided, and proceeded with trafficking the drugs, the line of reasoning went.
The other informant with direct familiarity of the briefing labeled that justification “absurdly irrational.”
The Pentagon did not swiftly reply to a query for a statement.
According to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, and Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who were likewise informed, the military deployed a total of four rockets to sink the boat: two rockets in the first assault, per Coons, and two in the second.
It represented the most thorough account of the September 2 strike so far — yet it failed to bring a unified perspective any nearer.
It is deemed a war crime to harm shipwrecked individuals, which the Pentagon’s manual on the laws of war defines as persons “in need of support and attention” who “must abstain from any hostile action.” Although most Republicans have expressed backing for President Donald Trump’s wider military campaign in the Caribbean, the subsequent assault on September 2 has provoked bipartisan questioning — including, most significantly, a commitment from the Senate Armed Services Committee to undertake review.
But following Thursday’s sequential closed-door briefings by Bradley, what was set to become the most notable congressional examination of the operation to date appeared to diverge along partisan lines.
Interpretations of the footage varied greatly: Cotton stated he “observed two survivors attempting to overturn a boat, laden with narcotics destined for the United States, back over so they could remain engaged in the conflict.” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Jim Himes, a Democrat from Connecticut, described it as “one of the most distressing things” he has witnessed as a legislator.
“Any American who views the footage that I saw will observe the United States military assaulting shipwrecked mariners — wicked parties, wicked parties, but assaulting shipwrecked mariners,” Himes remarked. “Indeed, they were transporting narcotics. They were not in a situation to proceed with their objective in any manner.”
Himes later conveyed to CNN’s Jake Tapper that, “The final outcome involved two persons without any weaponry, without any implements whatsoever, clinging to a broken vessel … the choice was made to eliminate them and that is precisely what transpired. And that was quite difficult to witness.”
Altering Narrative
The apparent discarding of defense officials’ assertions of a distress signal as proof of ongoing hostile intent — and thus, the permissibility of the subsequent strike — is merely the newest in a sequence of evolving narratives from the Trump administration since reports initially surfaced in the press over the weekend.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his spokespeople first condemned reports of the second strike, with Hegseth labeling it “fabricated, misleading, and denigrating reporting.” Merely days later, however, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the second strike occurred and stated Bradley was the individual who commanded it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth looks on during a Cabinet Session at the White House in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth looks on during a Cabinet Session at the White House in Washington, DC, on Tuesday. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
Hegseth’s involvement in the secondary assault — including the precise directives he furnished to Bradley — continues to be a focus of inquiry.
Himes and other legislators stated on Thursday that the admiral informed them that Hegseth did not issue a directive to “eliminate them all,” as the Washington Post originally reported.
Legislators were apprised on Thursday that Hegseth had made clear prior to the mission commencing that the strikes ought to be lethal, but that he was not appraised of the survivors until subsequent to their demise, one of the informants with direct familiarity noted.
During a Cabinet session on Tuesday, Hegseth mentioned that he witnessed the initial strike on the boat but then departed to attend other gatherings and ascertained about the second strike hours afterward.
Republican legislators mostly stood by Hegseth following Thursday’s debriefing.
“I feel assured and possess no further inquiries for Hegseth,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford of Arkansas told CNN.
But the specific wording of Hegseth’s mandates regarding the September 2 assault — or the over 20 others that the military has executed — remain obscure, as does the wider legal justification for the operation.
Since the September 2 strike, the US military has conducted upwards of 20 further strikes on ships it has categorized as crewed by “narco-terrorists,” resulting in the deaths of a minimum of 87 people in an endeavor that a wide spectrum of external legal experts have argued is probably illegitimate.
“The fundamental assessment that shapes this entire endeavor is that if there is a vessel with narcotics and persons that are associated with a narcotics trafficking group, that that constitutes a valid objective,” Coons told correspondents on Thursday. “I still harbor reservations about that.”
About the Author
