“`html
Pentagon Faced with Scrutiny Over Acknowledged Survivor Strike in Caribbean Sea
The U.S. Department of Defense was aware of survivors following an initial September attack on a vessel in the Caribbean Sea, yet authorized a subsequent strike, raising serious legal and ethical questions. This revelation, disclosed by sources with direct knowledge of the matter, has triggered bipartisan congressional investigations into whether the military acted lawfully during its counter-narcotics operations.
Growing Concerns Over Military Operations
The rationale behind the follow-up strike, according to those familiar with the situation, centered on the need to ensure the complete destruction of the vessel. Though, the decision to proceed despite knowing survivors has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The Trump administration maintains that all 11 individuals aboard were killed in the operations.
Did you know?-The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. Exceptions exist, but the current operations raise questions about the scope of those exceptions.
The unfolding situation has placed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth under intense scrutiny regarding the department’s broader strategy of targeting alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Specifically, the September 2nd follow-on strike, which reportedly resulted in the deaths of survivors, is drawing criticism from legal experts and lawmakers who argue it potentially violated both peacetime laws and the established rules of armed conflict.
Reader question:-What constitutes an “armed conflict” under international law? It generally requires a level of organized violence between states or organized armed groups.
“Fog of War” Defense and Congressional Response
Hegseth has attempted to defend the second strike, attributing it to the inherent uncertainties of the “fog of war.” During a recent Cabinet meeting at the White House, he stated he did not observe any survivors and also acknowledged he “didn’t stick around” to assess the situation further. He further asserted that Admiral frank “Mitch” Bradley, the commander who ordered the second strike, “made the right call” and possessed “complete authority” to do so.
President Donald Trump indicated a willingness to release video footage of the follow-on strike, responding to demands from leading Democratic lawmakers with, “I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have we’d certainly release. no problem.”
Legal Challenges and Claims of Extrajudicial Killings
The administration’s assertion that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels is also facing challenges, as Congress has not authorized the use of military force in the region.This legal ambiguity is further elaborate by a recent case filed with a human rights watchdog in the Americas. The family of Alejandro Carranza, a Colombian man, alleges his death on september 15th – resulting from a military strike on his fishing boat – constituted an extrajudicial killing in violation of international human rights conventions.
The September 2nd strike was the initial engagement in what the administration terms a counterdrug campaign,which has now encompassed over 20 known strikes and resulted in more than 80 fatalities. Crucially, details regarding the follow-on strike was initially withheld from lawmakers during a classified briefing held shortly after the incident. The department’s subsequent description has been deemed “broadly unsatisfactory” by members of the national security committees in Congress.
Pro tip:-Extrajudicial killings are unlawful deaths carried out by state agents outside the bounds of a legal process. They violate international human rights law.
Bipartisan Investigations Underway
In a rare display of unity, the Armed Services committees in both the House and Senate have launched swift investigations into the strikes, reflecting concerns from both sides of the political spectrum. Admiral Bradley is scheduled to testify in a classified
