Admiral Frank Bradley publicly took sole responsibility for authorizing a second air attack on a ship in the Caribbean Sea in September, after survivors were discovered after the first attack, with the aim of eliminating any threat linked to drug trafficking. According to The Washington Post and The Intercept, the US operation ended with the killing of eleven people identified by Washington as alleged members of terrorist organizations specializing in narcotics.
The operation, which the US administration based on the existence of a direct threat to the country’s security, was carried out in international waters. According to the Washington Post, White House spokeswoman Carolyn Levitt explained in a press conference that the intervention was based on the existing legal framework and was adapted to procedures planned for similar situations, explaining that the decision to implement it was only in accordance with the military leadership, without explicit guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “The latter is true,” Leavitt said when asked by the press about a possible direct order from Hegseth to ensure there were no survivors, before reading a statement in which the Pentagon exonerated the secretary and affirmed the independence of Admiral Bradley, who acted “within his authority and the law.”
The Intercept explained that the first phase of the attack was an attack on the boat, after which at least two survivors were discovered. Bradley then ordered a second operation aimed at eliminating any remaining threat to American interests. Levitt noted that the attack complied at all times with national and international legal standards in war scenarios. Various media outlets, including The Intercept and Washington Post, have highlighted that North American authorities framed the operation within a policy established during the Trump administration, which allows certain foreign drug trafficking groups to be designated as terrorist organizations and, from there, allows lethal measures to be applied in specific circumstances.
During the conference, a number of journalists asked the official spokesman about the extent to which this military action is compatible with the Law of War Manual of the Ministry of Defense, especially with point seven of Title IV of Chapter Five, which prohibits conducting hostilities aimed at having no survivors or threatening to deprive the barracks. The evidence supports this ban on humanitarian and military grounds. Faced with these questions, Levitt argued that the actions followed all legal guidelines, and stated that Bradley “acted properly, within his authority and the law governing the attack,” with the goal of ensuring the ship’s destruction and eliminating the threat posed by the alleged drug terrorists, according to the government.
According to reports compiled by The Intercept and Washington Post, the incident in question was the starting point for a series of similar operations in both the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. These operations, which are always justified under the pretext of neutralizing risks associated with drug trafficking and possible terrorist links, left at least eighty-three dead in various attacks after the first intervention, according to records of both media outlets. One incident documented in these months, which occurred in October, resulted in the rescue and repatriation of two crew members – one to Colombia and the other to Ecuador – who managed to survive a military attack with similar characteristics.
Regarding the treatment provided to survivors in successive operations, Levitt stated, according to The Intercept, that he had no information regarding possible changes in the official protocols in place. The spokesperson added that these provisions and their application continue to raise public debate about the legality and lack of transparency in US naval strike policy against narco-related terrorist threats.
Government spokesmen, as The Intercept has outlined, have repeatedly stressed the distinction between responsibilities. All steps in the chain of command related to authorization of attacks were owned by Admiral Bradley, who demarcated the Secretary of Defense regarding direct instructions regarding the elimination of survivors. Levitt has repeated this position in various interventions, and both The Intercept and The Washington Post have confirmed the position repeated by administration representatives.
The policy protecting these attacks is based on the presidential right to act with deadly force in situations that, in the opinion of authorities, pose an immediate danger to citizens and contribute to the illegal entry of drugs, which, according to official data provided by the White House, have caused record numbers of overdose deaths in the country. The Intercept stressed that under these assumptions, the campaign of lethal interventions continues, always in accordance with the American and international legal framework regulating armed conflicts, with special attention paid to protecting the chain of command and prior justification for all actions carried out.