The Pentagon is facing new questions about a military operation from September 2nd. This operation involved a strike on a boat suspected of carrying drugs from Venezuela. After the initial strike, a second strike occurred, raising concerns about whether it followed the rules of engagement.
Reports say a military lawyer was present when the second strike was approved. This has led to questions about what advice, if any, the lawyer gave before the strike.
Some experts say that having a lawyer present suggests the mission was treated as a counterterrorism operation, where legal oversight is more common. Usually, drug operations don’t have lawyers involved unless lethal force is expected.
The key legal question is whether the people who survived the first strike were still protected by law when the second strike happened. International law protects those who are helpless due to being wounded or shipwrecked, unless they start fighting again or can immediately cause harm.
The question now is: did the survivors do anything that showed they were trying to resume hostile actions, or were they just trying to survive?
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has publicly supported the commander who ordered the strike, calling him “an American hero.” Former President Trump has also praised the operation as part of a broader effort against “narcoterrorists.”
Some legal experts argue that regardless of whether a lawyer was present, it’s wrong to attack shipwrecked people who are no longer a threat. They say that killing helpless survivors is a clear violation of the laws of war.
The debate continues, with many waiting for more information from the Pentagon. The main questions are: What information did the military have when the second strike was approved? Did the lawyer agree with the decision? And did those in charge see the survivors’ actions as a real threat?
