Military and legal experts are raising serious questions about Admiral Frank M. Bradley’s justification for ordering a second strike that killed two survivors of a Sept. 2 boat attack near Trinidad, challenging the the military commander’s core legal reasoning and tactical decisions.
Geoffrey Corn, a retired Army lawyer, told the Washington Post that even if suspected drug smugglers are classified as combatants, international law requires feasible rescue attempts before striking again. “That to me is the most troubling aspect of the attack,” Corn said, noting that Bradley’s assertion does not explain why he ordered the second strike instead of attempting rescue.
The admiral’s uncertainty about whether the survivors were “shipwrecked” — and therefore protected under international law — formed the basis of his decision, yet Todd Huntley, former director of the Navy’s international law office, rejected Bradley’s logic entirely.
Under international law, individuals simply need to be “in distress in water” to qualify as shipwrecked – they need not be drowning or wounded – and Huntley directly challenged Bradley’s speculation about a communications device: “You can’t kill somebody in the water merely because they have a radio.”
Bradley’s theory that survivors could drift to shore or reach a rendezvous point was equally flawed, according to legal experts.
The admiral conceded to some lawmakers that the survivors probably could not have flipped the wreckage. Huntley dismissed the prospect of a rendezvous as irrelevant: “That is such a far-out theory.” The potential rendezvous did not indicate hostile intent or prove the survivors posed a threat.
Adding to the skepticism is the operation’s questionable premise. The targeted cargo was headed to Suriname, not the United States, and most narcotics moving through the Caribbean are destined for Europe and Western Africa.
“That further underscores that this boat was not a threat to the United States and not a lawful target,” Huntley told the Post.
Experts also question whether the survivors even understood they could surrender. The boat’s occupants were likely unaware the Trump administration had declared “war” on drug traffickers. Few would recognize a wave or raised arms as a surrender gesture in a military context, particularly when fired upon without warning.
Perhaps most damaging is evidence that the Defense Department ran simulations beforehand showing survivors were possible —yet made no rescue preparations. On the day of the attack, no personnel or equipment stood ready for rescue operations.
Bradley’s legal justification rests on treating drug traffickers as enemy combatants in an armed conflict. But this classification fundamentally conflicts with international humanitarian law, designed for traditional warfare, not criminal activity. Legal experts uniformly reject this application, suggesting the admiral’s explanation reflects a legal framework that simply does not fit the circumstances.
The post ‘Most troubling aspect’: Admiral’s explanation for second strike doesn’t add up to experts appeared first on Raw Story.
