All Podcasts / The Daily / Did a U.S. Boat Strike Amount to a War Crime?
The Daily
The Daily

Did a U.S. Boat Strike Amount to a War Crime?

December 03, 2025 • 33m

Summary

⏱️ 10 min read

Overview

This episode of The Daily examines the Trump administration's military strikes on boats in the Caribbean suspected of drug trafficking, focusing on a September 2nd attack where a second missile was fired to kill survivors of the initial strike. The episode explores the legal questions surrounding these operations, including whether they constitute a war crime, and discusses the renewed congressional investigation prompted by a Washington Post report revealing that the second strike was ordered specifically to eliminate survivors.

The Washington Post Story That Reignited Scrutiny

A Washington Post story published after Thanksgiving added significant new details about the first boat strike on September 2nd, revealing that Admiral Frank Bradley ordered a second missile strike to kill survivors of the initial attack, allegedly because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered to 'kill everyone.' This reporting reignited public attention and prompted bipartisan calls for congressional investigation into what many legal experts view as a potential war crime under the laws of armed conflict.

  • The Washington Post story revealed that Admiral Bradley ordered a second strike to kill survivors because Hegseth said to kill everyone
  • The first strike on September 2nd had always been the most questionable of 21 attacks, with additional complicating details about the boat turning around and multiple missile strikes
  • The Intercept had previously reported that initial survivors of the first missile strike died in the subsequent strike
" Admiral Frank Bradley, who was running the operation, had ordered the second strike to kill the survivors of the first one because Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had said to kill everyone. "

The Legal Framework: Armed Conflict vs. Murder

The administration claims these operations are part of an armed conflict with drug cartels, making the people on boats combatants rather than criminals. However, even accepting this controversial legal theory, the laws of war explicitly prohibit firing upon people who are out of the fight, including shipwrecked sailors. This creates a fundamental question: if the second strike deliberately targeted survivors, it would constitute a clear war crime, but the legality becomes murkier if the intent was to destroy the boat or drugs.

  • The administration argues this is an armed conflict with drug cartels, making people on boats combatants rather than criminals
  • Under laws of armed conflict, you cannot fire upon shipwrecked sailors or people who have surrendered - that is explicitly a war crime
  • If this is not an armed conflict, then all 83 killings across 21 boat strikes were arguably just murder
  • The legality gets murky if the second strike targeted the boat or drugs rather than specifically the survivors
" Under the laws of armed conflict, very explicitly, you cannot fire upon people who are out of the fight, people who have surrendered, people who are incredibly wounded and unable to fight you back, or explicitly shipwrecked sailors cannot be fired upon, that is a war crime. "
" If it's not an armed conflict, the first missile was murder, the second missile was murder, they were all unlawful. "

📚 8 more sections below

Sign up to unlock the complete summary with all insights, key points, and quotes

Listen on Apple Podcasts More Episodes from The Daily