On September 2, the US military executed an airstrike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea, resulting in significant casualties and sparking outrage among lawmakers and legal experts. The attack is the 22nd military operation targeting vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. This move is one of the steps in the administration’s long-running campaign against drug trafficking. The military action would ultimately take the lives of at least 87 people, but questions remain as to whether or not the strikes were even legal, much less moral.
Adm Frank Bradley commanded the operation. He would later testify to members of Congress that, despite media reports alleging US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered this phrase invoked prior to the strike, there was no standing order to “kill them all.” The shooting has led to renewed discussions and debates about the terms of engagement. It has since become a central issue in assessing the legality of U.S. military operations against suspected drug traffickers.
The airstrike started off with an airburst munition, which is when a weapon detonates above the target, killing the ship’s nine man crew right away. Of those on board, just two men lived through the first attack. They held onto that floating debris for nearly an hour. Later, they were targeted and killed in a second attack when three additional munitions hit the already disabled ship.
The Pentagon announced that the US was formally at war against drug traffickers. They added that, based on this categorization, these kinds of strikes are lawful under the laws of war. Unfortunately, this rationale has come under fire by dozens of legal scholars, who have claimed the justification is dubious at best.
“It is manifestly unlawful to kill someone who’s been shipwrecked.” – Rebecca Ingber
In what was supposed to be a closed-door briefing, senators were shown video footage of the incident that added to the alarm. The content revealed distressing scenes where “you could see their faces, bodies… Then boom, boom, boom,” according to an anonymous source familiar with the footage. Given the brutal and graphic nature of the video, bipartisan criticism came fast and furious.
Rep. Jim Himes characterized the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service,” emphasizing the lack of active combat from the shipwrecked individuals. He argued that even if you buy all the legal lies—this is an “armed conflict,” drugs are war-sustaining objects—there’s zero evidence the two drowned individuals were engaged in “hostile combat operations” whatsoever. Life for them outside of fighting wouldn’t be any better.
Himes’s focus was on the moral implications of targeting individuals who clearly appeared to be suffering. The brutal truth is these people had no escape route.
“You have two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel.” – Jim Himes
On the civilian side, Senators have called for more transparency on military operations and the justifications for them. To hear the Pentagon tell it, transparency was key. Specifically, they announced that the American people should have access to all information needed to assess what is being done in their name.
The legal ramifications are muddled by fears about the precedents being established by these military actions. Critics have cautioned that declaring such strikes permissible under existing definitions of armed conflict would undermine deeply important safeguards. This has the potential to make deadly ramifications here at home.
“What’s the next step? There’s somebody committing a street crime or you claim they’re committing a street crime in a United States city, and then you can unleash the military on them without judicial evidence.” – Marcus Stanley
Yet, throughout the life of the Trump administration, officials have insisted drug traffickers should be treated as a military target because they threaten national security interests. This view is widely rejected by legal experts, who contend that it violates hard-won laws about meaningful engagement and due process.