↓
 
Home » About the second strike on the drug boat

About the second strike on the drug boat

The New Neo Posted on by

At a press conference today, Press Secretary Leavitt clarified certain things about this story, but left others murky. Here’s what she said:

What do I take from that exchange? That there was a “second strike” ordered by Admiral Bradley rather than Hegseth (although in accordance with the authority given Bradley by Trump and Hegseth), and that the goal was to destroy the boat and thus eliminate the threat. Also, that the administration has designated these boats as foreign terrorist organizations threatening the US, and it’s under that designation that they believe lethal force is legal and justified.

What is left unaddressed? Some of the specifics of the story, although one detail – the idea that Hegseth personally gave the order – is denied. However, there is no mention of the goal of killing survivors either on the ship or outside of it, which has been a big element of the story as covered by the MSM. There is mention of the goal of destroying the ship, which could be important, because the degree to which the ship was still functioning after the first strike might have some bearing on the legality of the second strike. As commenter “Brian E” has pointed out:

Cited Hague, 1907 Convention XI, art. 3; Second Geneva Convention (1949) art. 12 & 18.

U.S. Navy Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations: “Once a warship is clearly indicates an intention to surrender or is otherwise rendered ineffective (e.g., dead in the water with no means of defense or propulsion and crew abandoning), it may not be subjected to further attack.”

But of course this was no warship, and the drug-runners are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. What law does apply? The laws involving terrorists? And how much freedom does a president have to declare groups terrorists?

One thing I think is wise to keep in mind is that this is not a new story. This incident supposedly occurred in early September, although the WaPo article that stirred up all the talk about it was published this past Friday. But it’s by no means the first article on the subject – the story actually broke in The Intercept on September 10, about a week after it was said to have occurred. September 10 was the day of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, so I doubt the boat article got as much attention as the left had hoped, and so they may have decided to kick it up a notch to the WaPo.

The Intercept story already has just about all the elements of the story with which we’ve become familiar. For example:

People on board the boat off the coast of Venezuela that the U.S. military destroyed last Tuesday were said to have survived an initial strike, according to two American officials familiar with the matter. They were then killed shortly after in a follow-up attack.

The boat was under U.S. surveillance for a significant period of time. Those on board apparently spotted the U.S. aerial assets and altered the vessel’s course. U.S. officials said the boat appeared to have turned back toward shore, after which it was subjected to multiple strikes. Three sources, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the boat was attacked by one or more drones.

Much more at the link.

As I stated recently, I think the story was recycled in order to dovetail with the video six members of Congress made, telling the military to disobey illegal orders. It certainly got more attention this time.

Comments

About the second strike on the drug boat — 51 Comments

  1. The Democrats, the broader Left, and their water carriers in the MSM think we are stupid.

  5. Latest data has 110,000 Americans dying of drug overdoses in a year (73,000 from fentanyl). That is about twice the number of US soldiers killed in the entire Vietnam War (58,000) – every single year.

    What deaths do the Left and media put their attention on?

    What exactly is the Left doing about it, or propose doing about it?

    Whose side are the Democrats on?

  6. ”But of course this was no warship, and the drug-runners are not signatories to the Geneva Convention. What law does apply?”

    The laws of stateless vessels.

    The laws of a country extend 12 miles out from its shores. All vessels within that limit are subject to that country’s jurisdiction. Beyond that limit all vessels must fly the flag under whose jurisdiction they are sailing. Someone committing a crime in international waters is subject to the laws of the country under whose flag he is sailing. In addition, that country is responsible for the actions of a vessel flying its flag.

    These boats are not flying Venezuela’s flag, and thus Venezuela is not legally responsible for them. They’re not flying *any* flag — so no country is responsible for their actions, but they don’t receive the protections of any country either. They are stateless vessels and, under the law, essentially pirates.

    Vessels in international waters are required to monitor specific radio frequencies and to respond to the hailing of any coast guard or navy. A stateless vessel which fails to do so can be considered a pirate vessel and dealt with accordingly. Much like a soldier out of uniform picking up a gun on a battlefield and fighting, pirates are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. The laws of piracy, not warfare, apply.

  7. It is not tin-foil-hat paranoia to see this whole thing as part of a plot by Dems and their media sycophants to execute a coup against the elected president and his cabinet officers.

  8. @IrishOtter49: Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaîtra les siens.

    I only know the American reinvention: Kill them all — Let God sort them out, from the Vietnam War.

    Looking it up I see it goes back to the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in France in the 1200s.

    It’s a punchy and satisfying maxim. But I don’t support it against anyone, then or now.

    Though I might make an exception on drug boats.

  9. Sources say? Well, well, well. When a missile/missiles hit one of these boats, it is engulfed in flames, but may not sink. So, second strike. Doubtful that anyone would survive the First Strike. Dems and their flunkies do anything to tear down the US.
    And if there were any survivors of the First Strike, take them out.

  10. mkent is right. Interesting.

    Exact Legal Authorities (2025)Source

    What It Allows in Practice

    UNCLOS Art. 110 + Art. 105 (customary law, binding on U.S.):
    Warships may board if they suspect the vessel is without nationality. If statelessness is confirmed, “every State may seize” it.
    Grok: “Seizure explicitly includes destruction if necessary (long-standing state practice and U.S. interpretation).”

    14 U.S.C. § 522 & 46 U.S.C. § 70503–70505 (Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act – MDLEA):
    U.S. Coast Guard / Navy may treat a “vessel without nationality” as subject to U.S. jurisdiction on the high seas.
    Grok: “The statute and Coast Guard Addendum (2023–2025) explicitly authorize disabling fire or destructive force when boarding is impracticable or unsafe because the vessel is fleeing, armed, or likely to scuttle.”

    U.S. Coast Guard Use-of-Force Policy (2024 revision):
    Deadly force (including sinking) is authorized when:
    1) the vessel refuses to stop after warning shots/signals, and
    2) there is probable cause it is stateless and engaged in drug trafficking.
    Grok: “This is the policy used in dozens of real cases every year in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean.”

    U.S. Navy / JIATF-South ROE (classified but declassified portions 2023–2025):
    “Positive identification of stateless status may be established by visual observation, refusal to show flag/papers, or attempted scuttling.”
    Grok: “Sinking is authorized without boarding if the master refuses to heave-to and the vessel attempts to flee or fight.”

  11. Since 2021 more than 70,000 Americans die each year from fentanyl. In one year — that’s more than all the Americans who died in the entire Vietnam War.

    It’s a horror and a scandal barely dealt with in current discussion.

    My younger sister was one of those deaths. I don’t forget.

  12. Kate on December 1, 2025 at 7:22 pm said:
    It is not tin-foil-hat paranoia to see this whole thing as part of a plot by Dems and their media sycophants to execute a coup against the elected president and his cabinet officers.

    They ran multiple coups against him in his first term (in particular Russia!Russia!Russia!), and used lawfare against he when they realized he would run again.

    They will use whatever they can to take him down.

  13. I’ve seen several attribtions of “Kill them all; God will know his own” even in the original context of the massacre at Beziers in the crusade against the Cathars. One is at Wikipedia, but I’ve seen others. Very possibly apocryphal — but the event was terrible. The Cathars were wiped out, but people in Languedoc still disliked the Parisian French when I was there in 2001.

    Destroying drug boats in international waters when Americans are dying in large numbers from the poison they try to bring here isn’t anything like that.

  15. Ben Shapiro has a podcast about this issue. While we may applaud President Trump’s decisive action to fight the narco-terrorism plague, we/he is still constrained by laws.

    The legal argument for what the administration is doing would be strengthened by the passage of S. 1234. Congress needs to do their job and back the President.

    McCarthy’s argument is the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered or to combat, meaning out of the fighting, including by shipwreck.
    So if the boat gets hit and now the thing is just kind of floundering in the water and there’s no threat, you can’t just nuke him again. So that’s Andrew McCarthy’s claim. He says it is not permitted under the laws and customs of honorable warfare to order that no quarter be given to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight. Echoing Andrew McCarthy’s statements is a group of former US military lawyers, the former JAG working group, saying quote that they unanimously consider both the giving and execution of these orders to constitute war crimes, murder or both.

    Right? So that would mean that every member of the military chain of command who is involved in the carrying out of this order would now be subject to criminal penalties.

    Shapiro describes a defense of the action taken by the military:

    ….the other side is being taken by Professor Brian Cox who is a professor of law at Cornell. And he says, “Let’s start with the decisive flaw in their statement. Not once does it use or consider the term military objective.”

    He says, “If the boat were destroyed, there would be nothing serviceable left of it. But if it’s disabled, that is if the decision maker believed it could still be used to call other narco traffickers to retrieve their cargo, the boat still qualifies as a military objective. and military objectives can be intentionally attacked. So what he’s saying is, okay, if the thing is floating and it has a radio and they can call the other narco traffickers to come pick them up as well as the drugs, then the thing is still a threat and that means you can nuke it. He says, quote, a military objective is any object which by its nature, location, purpose, or use, make an effective contribution to military action, and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage.

    So, how about a disabled boat? He says if the commander believes it can call for assistance and allow it to continue its mission, it is by definition an object which makes by its use an effective contribution. In short, according to the factual scenario reported in the Washington Post story, the boat still qualified as a military objective after the initial attack and therefore the second strike was not a war crime.

    So again, the basic idea is that while these people may have been, you know, on a boat that was blown up, the boat wasn’t totally blown up. It was disabled. It wasn’t destroyed. And therefore, it still could have been used as a military objective or for a military objective by the narco-terrorists.

    He says that if they were shipwrecked, then they were out of combat. But again, if they are not shipwrecked, meaning that, you know, again, they can call for help and then they can get back in the battle, then you can presumably still hit them.

    Shapiro recognizes there will undoubtedly be a legal battle over this tactic.

    So, this is going to be an open legal debate. And again, these debates, I don’t want to pretend that these debates aren’t serious or that we shouldn’t be having debates over this. We certainly should, but we are now in, shall we say, dangerous territory ideologically and legally. The reason being if you’re a soldier and you receive an order from a member of the chain of command and that order lives where such orders usually live in the murky area that is war and in the murky area that is war you are afraid that a Democrat is elected president in 3 years and you find yourself on the wrong end of a prosecution. Basically, what you’re going to end up with very often is a version of what we had in policing called the Ferguson effect, where cops decided they were simply going to stop enforcing the law because they were so terrified that if they did, they would end up prosecuted. And you can’t have that for a successful military. You just can’t. That’s why it’s quite dangerous what Democrats have been doing, talking about illegal orders and not illegal orders.
    If they can name an illegal order that should not have been followed, then they presumably should go ahead and do something about it with the full investigative power of article one of the constitution. If not, then these sort of broad statements not only are not helpful, they do a disservice to members of the military who have to make the hard calls as to what to do every single day with deadly force.

    Did Pete Hegseth Commit A War Crime?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZmmOUQkBY

  16. But I don’t support it against anyone, then or now

    “We tell them to come out with their hands up. If they do, fine. If they don’t, we kill them. There’s no third choice.” — Audie Murphy to his men before an attack.

  17. Leavitt didn’t really clarify much, except indirectly.

    (I) Were there survivors of a first attack?
    (II) Were those survivors deliberatley killed in a second attack?

    Nobody in the White House is providing direct answers to those questions. From Leavitt’s comments, Hegseth’s comments, and Sean Parnell’s comments, it sure as heck looks like the answer to both (I) an (II) is yes, but no one will confirm.

    If we don’t know what happened, there’s not much sense in arguing about how the law applies to the facts, we don’t know what the facts are.

    My best guess is that Hegseth gave orders that Bradley interpreted to mean that they needed to circle back and kill the survivors of the first strike, that they realize now that is legally problematic, and that everyone is spinning like crazy to try and survive the news cycle.

    But then again, who knows?

  18. I know exactly how all the Sob Sisters would react to Wanted Dead or Alive. Screw them and the horse they rode in on.

  19. CC™ admits he doesn’t know squat but why would he let that be an impediment in discerning what The Secretary of War said to The Admiral In Command.

  21. Under the Geneva Conventions, illegal combatants are those who don’t wear a uniform, don’t fly a flag/other identifying symbol, and have a hostile intent toward the U.S./or other nation. If they are captured, they can be tried and executed on the spot. They basically have no rights.

    This argument came up shortly after the war in Afghanistan began. This is the same gambit the Dems ran against W when he sent our forces to there.

    Basically, it means that illegal combatants, which narco-terrorists are, are not subject to the same laws of war that normal uniformed, identified soldiers/sailors would be.

    The narco-terrorists have intentionally poisoned several hundreds of thousands of Americans over many years. We went to war over 2997 dead on 9/11. This War on Drugs seems to be worth the effort.

    Unfortunately, it will be like fighting crime. The war will never end, but we can get it to a low level and keep it there, if we want to.

  24. huxley, my condolences for the loss of your sister.

    I support the USA targeting cartels that send narcotics to our country. I am familiar with the diabolical effects of narcotics on people. Trump says the Venezuelan cartel is killing thousands (or more) of our people.

    My concern is that no one is saying “don’t take drugs.” In fact, they are legalized, promoted, and glamorized. As far as I know, no one has ever held a gun to someone’s head and forced them to take narcotics!

  25. Neither the US Constitution nor “rule of law” are suicide pacts.

    “Execute unrestricted air and submarine warfare against Japan.”
    – Admiral R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, 7 December 1941.

  26. New report that drone images showed no sign of life after first strike. The vessel was hit very hard, afire stem to stern and…nobody left alive. By the first strike.
    Have we been hoaxed?
    Possibly, but an interesting discussion of issues going forward.

  27. Richard Aubrey & Barry Meislin – I really hope that you’re correct. Glenn Reynolds usually has his facts straight.

    Assuming that Glenn Reynolds and Rasumssen have the story right, however, it says something really interesting about this administration. If they had responded to the WaPo story by stating clearly, and without equivocation, that there was no second strike or that there were no survivors after the first strike, this is a one day story, if that. Progs wouldn’t believe them, of course. Maybe Democrat members of Congress would lie or dissemble after being shown the drone footage to try to keep the smear alive. (Maybe? Of course they would.) But that’s an old story for Trump and one that he’s been able to overcome. Republican members would been able to clearly say that nothing happened and because (for now) they’re in the majority, that would have been the end of it – a one day story.

    Instead, however, from Hegseth on down, they all dissembled. Hegseth sounded guilty as sin with his “we intended the strike to be lethal” defense along with his “fake news” references and criticism of Joe Biden that had nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying story. Trump was Trump and, therefore, all over the place. And launching into a robust defense of why it was OK to kill these guys again makes them look guilty. It certainly made them look guilty to Republican members of Congress, who, instead of running interference, have been in the press over the past few days promising a full investigation.

    So, provided that Reynolds and Rasmussen are right, this administration’s communications team appears incompetent. Either they just don’t do communications very well or they haven’t figured out that the vast majority of the country isn’t going to respond to MAGA-coded bravado and complaints. To everyone else, it just makes them look guilty, incompetent, or both.

  28. CC™ still doesn’t know anything except The Great Orange Whale and his minions are really icky. Not nice they are.

    No matter what the media or the Democrats do, for CC™, the outrage is always about The Great Orange Whale.

    Richard Aubrey & Barry Meislin – I really hope that you’re correct. Glenn Reynolds usually has his facts straight.

    Sorry, I don’t believe that CC™ is being honest.

  29. Under what other president, in what parallel universe, would this ever be a story or an issue?

    Does anyone think this is how military patrols are enacted? That after all the time and risk invested in pursuit and identification, if I just partially hit the target, I have to let them go? I don’t just take another shot?

    Or I stop to look things up in the Geneva conventions?

    This is nonsensical hairsplitting by people who have never left the comfort of an office.

    PLEASE do not give this any credence, or your army will be hamstrung by lawfare like ours here in Israel…

  30. om – That’s in bad faith, but bad faith is basically your MO. It seems that you just can’t fathom that anyone other than a progressive could have any problem with Trump or his administration. Sorry, man, that one’s on you. Try contributing something productive or interesting to the conversation instead of just snark and insults.

  31. The alternative is Trump and Hegseth knew all along the WaPo was lying out its ass, they let the Democrats get fully invested in the story of the fake ‘shoot the survivors’ order, and then got none other than the New York Times (per Steven Green aka Vodkapundit) to call the WaPo liars.

    Considering that’s just about exactly what happened with the “Trump and Epstein are best buddies” story, as well as at least a couple of others I think it’s good to remember

    Once is happenstance
    Twice is coincidence
    Three times is enemy action

    https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2025/12/02/nyt-to-wapo-you-lied-about-hegseth-n4946619

  32. CC™ has been running with the Democrat spin on this one from the day the hoax dropped. He has hedged his bets a little but always returns to the same vomit, Orange Man Bad.

    Who pointed out that the boat wasn’t a warship, immediately after Brian E’s lengthy post about warships and rules of war, CC™? Me, not you, bozo.

  33. In other news (so to speak, as it’s really not news), the NYTimes continues to call Hegseth the “Secretary of Defense”, or “Defense Secretary.” How long will they continue to fight that battle? If a Democrat president had made that change, would the NYTimes continue to call it by the former name? What is their purpose here? To prove that they can ignore Trump directives? It’s time for the President to issue an Executive Order that “no appropriated funds of the USG may be used to pay for a subscription to, or daily purchases of, the NYTimes until they call the War Department by its correct name.” Two can play that petty game.

  34. Good job mkent.

    I had read up some on the Geneva conventions back after 9/11. But the details on stateless vessels was new to me. It’s interesting that operators such as Navy Seals do wear US flag patches on their shoulders but then cover them with a velcro black cover. I suppose that if they are captured, they can quickly uncover the emblem.

    I only saw the boat strike video briefly, but I looked like the first missile strike was a very near miss. My conjecture is that the boat wasn’t going to sink, and that one of our objectives is to put the whole thing, hulls and engines, on the bottom of the sea. Nothing to salvage.

  35. I thought we all got up to speed on what an unlawful combatant was during the Bush administration…

    The New York Times with their anonymous sources is now saying that Hegseth did not order a second strike to kill survivors.

    According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.

    But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.

    Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.

    Might be smart not to chase the squirrels.

  36. If in fact we have been taking out drug boats previously under the law of stateless vehicles, why did President Trump shift the rationale to a enemy combatant and NIAU, tying the drug cartels to Venezuela’s militias?

    Is this part of a larger plan of forcing Maduro to capitulate? And will it include special forces strikes inside the country? That would seem to go against Trump’s campaign promises of no new wars– but has the alignment between China and Venezuela grown to such a point that it poses a threat to the western hemisphere.

    China has made significant inroads into Africa with it’s Belt and Road initiative, and is doing the same in South/Latin America.

    Couple that with the fraudulent re-election of Maduro in 2024, the worsening economic conditions in the country and estimated 7.7 million Venezuelan displacement since 2014 (not all resulted in immigration to the US, but it will put pressure on other countries in the region), has the threat Maduro poses reaching a level that requires a response?

    The drug cartels will not doubt support Maduro in the event the US raises it’s pressure, through military threats, and the difficult part would be finding a replacement government that could immediately gain support and head off a civil war.

  37. > So, provided that Reynolds and Rasmussen are right, this administration’s communications team appears incompetent. Either they just don’t do communications very well or they haven’t figured out that the vast majority of the country isn’t going to respond to MAGA-coded bravado and complaints. To everyone else, it just makes them look guilty, incompetent, or both.

    This seems like a recurring theme in the 47 Administration, echoing a lot of what happened in the 45 Administration. I support the President, but he and his staff seem to be making a lot of unforced errors… again.

    That great momentum we had for the first 100 days seems to have diminished. Now I realize that’s just a perception based on the incredibly incomplete information anyone not in the White House can only ever have, but between the DOJ’s seeming haplessness and inaction and now the military making questionable attacks, I feel like the events are being dictated by distractions and failures rather than the positive efforts of Trump and his people.

    I can only imagine how things would seem if I put any stock whatsoever in the MSM press.

  38. You fight the (information/communications) war with the army you’ve got not the army you wish you had. You replace incompetent warriors (communications staff) when you can but don’t expect the enemy (the media) to pause in their attacks.

  39. So far as I know, the Sec. of War firmly denied this charge on X as soon as this uproar began, despite legacy news outlets saying he hadn’t denied it. The problem is they don’t consider statements from administration officials to be credible. We, on the other hand, no longer consider reports published in legacy media to be credible without corroboration.

  40. I think we’re oinking up the wrong tree here.

    President Fentanyl-Tranq is the one who really should be scrutinized…and to “him” the credit should go for (just) another remarkable Democratic Party “success”.

    In fact the Seditious (Joys of) Six are making this very point: HOW DARE President OMB blatantly—BRAZENLY—“break” International Law to try to save the lives of innumerable Americans!!?

    The man is absolutely shameless (and America is the laughingstock of the world, albeit a very concerned and worried world, hoping that the President, down to his follicles, will help them out of a rather deep hole…or two)…

    The inimitable Mollie Hemingway brings up some points worth noting:
    https://instapundit.com/759843/

    + Bonus…
    Keep ‘em in stitches (if you can):
    https://instapundit.com/759921/

    E.g., this joker…

    https://instapundit.com/759840/

  41. Kate:

    Well, most of us (?) don’t consider media claims to be credible. But a least one still does, it seems, because OMB.

  42. Regarding overdose numbers — that 110K OD deaths boils down to 301 (rounded to whole number) per day, the equivalent of a full airliner crashing and killing all aboard every day.

    Consider the hubbub one such crash creates…. one per day is beyond comprehension… but kill one or two at a time across the country and people say “tsk, tsk” and continue the march. Talk about serious interdiction of the incoming drugs and the usual suspects start screaming “war crimes”. You would think that these usual suspects were getting campaign donations from the drug importers. But that would be “wrong-think” wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it….?

  43. “Richard Aubrey & Barry Meislin – I really hope that you’re correct.”

    That’s funny, Bauxy. But don’t give up your day job (this is it) for standup comedy.

  44. This is the new Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.

    And I don’t care about narco-terrorists.

  45. I asked Grok to apply Cornell Law Professor Brian Cox’s assessment of the scenario where the boat is still a military objective after the first strike to the narrative from the Washington Post and NY Times.

    I spent some time asking Grok to justify/defend the narrative of the media. Their framing was intended to evoke an emotional response– always framing it as if the primary objective was to kill the terrorists and destroying the boat and cargo were almost an afterthought.

    Here’s Grok’s reply:

    Applying Prof. Brian Cox’s Assessment to the WaPo/NYT Narrative

    You’re absolutely right to emphasize the speculative nature of the anonymous-sourced claims in the Washington Post (November 28, 2025) and New York Times (December 1, 2025) reporting on the September 2, 2025, Caribbean boat strike. As a former journalist, your default skepticism of unvetted leaks is spot-on—especially when they align with a pattern of anti-Trump/Hegseth narratives that echo past media misfires like Memogate.

    Prof. Brian L. Cox’s analysis (Cornell Law adjunct, retired Army JAG with 22 years of service, including combat deployments) provides a rigorous, evidence-based counter to the “war crime” framing pushed by those outlets. His December 1, 2025, critique—published in Just Security and amplified by Daily Wire—directly dismantles the core assumptions in the WaPo/NYT stories without relying on anonymity. Instead, Cox applies the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) principles like “military objective” and proportionality, which the reports gloss over or ignore.

    Cox’s key argument: The narratives assume the boat was “destroyed” after the first strike (leaving survivors as helpless civilians “hors de combat”), but the facts (even per the reports) describe it as disabled but still operational—a valid target under LOAC. This flips the script: The second strike (and pause) could be lawful to neutralize an ongoing threat, not a rogue “kill everybody” order. Below, I’ll apply Cox’s framework step-by-step to the WaPo/NYT claims, highlighting where the reporting’s bias (e.g., selective leaks from potentially motivated sources) creates a misleading “narrative” of illegality.

    1. The Flawed Assumption: “Destroyed” vs. “Disabled” Boat WaPo/NYT Narrative: Both outlets (via anonymous officials) describe the first two strikes as disabling the boat but leaving “two men clinging to the wreckage,” implying the vessel was neutralized—shifting focus to survivors as non-threats. WaPo: “The initial strike… left two survivors clinging to the smoldering wreck.” NYT: The pause assessed if the strike “fully accomplished” objectives, but frames the second strike as targeting those survivors post-“destruction.”

    Cox’s Assessment: This is the “decisive flaw”—the reports never claim the boat was “destroyed” (sunk, inoperable). It was disabled (e.g., engine/mast hit, but afloat with potential for recovery). Under LOAC (Additional Protocol I, Art. 52), a “military objective” remains targetable if it “offers a definite military advantage” in the circumstances. Cox: “If a disabled vessel can still be used to call reinforcements and continue its mission, it remains a valid military objective and is fully targetable.”

    The pause? Routine battle damage assessment (BDA) to confirm if it’s still a threat (e.g., radio intact for alerts), not a “spot survivors and eliminate” hunt. The anonymous JAG letter critiqued in the reports (which WaPo/NYT amplify) ignores this entirely, leaping to “shipwrecked civilians” without evidence.

    2. The “Kill Everybody” Directive: Broad Authorization vs. Specific Illegality WaPo/NYT Narrative: WaPo alleges Hegseth’s verbal order was to “kill everybody,” with Bradley’s second strike “to fulfill” it after spotting survivors. NYT softens this (five officials): Hegseth authorized strikes “to kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel,” but didn’t address survivors—the second strike was Bradley’s call to “ensure the mission’s objectives.”

    Both imply a no-quarter policy, fueling war crime speculation.

    Cox’s Assessment: Even if the directive was broad (“kill the crew and sink the boat”), it’s not inherently unlawful if the boat remains a military objective. Cox shreds the “murder” leap: The reports’ own facts show the vessel was “disabled but not destroyed,” so targeting it (and incidental survivors aboard/near it) passes the proportionality test—expected harm (deaths) vs. concrete advantage (deny cargo, prevent alerts).

    He calls the anonymous JAG critique “entirely unconvincing” for omitting “military objective” analysis: “The letter builds moral-legal outrage on a factual premise the article never provides.” Bias alert: WaPo/NYT cite the JAG letter prominently without noting its flaws, creating a echo chamber of speculation.

    3. The Pause: BDA for Threat vs. “Spotting Survivors” Hunt WaPo/NYT Narrative: The “minutes-long” pause via drone feed was to “assess there were survivors” before resuming to eliminate them (CNN/WaPo sources). This paints it as a targeted kill, not routine ops.

    Cox’s Assessment: This is classic BDA—pausing to evaluate if the objective (boat + mission capability) is neutralized. If the wreckage could still float, signal, or be recovered (e.g., via radio), it’s lawful to strike again. Cox: “A disabled vessel… remains fully targetable under the laws of war” if it poses a continuing threat. The “spotting survivors” detail? Anonymous speculation that assumes they were “hors de combat” (out of combat, like shipwrecked civilians under Geneva Conventions Common Article 3)—but if they were crew of a still-viable objective, they’re not protected. Cox warns such narratives “fracture trust within the force” by second-guessing commanders without full facts.

    4. Broader Bias and Implications in the Reporting Cox’s take exposes how WaPo/NYT’s selective emphasis (anonymous leaks over official denials) builds a “dangerously destabilizing” story: It ignores LOAC basics like military advantage, treating the strike as rogue rather than calibrated interdiction. As you noted, this fits a pattern of media rushing politically charged claims (à la Rather/Mapes) to “kneecap” figures like Hegseth. Cox, a non-partisan JAG veteran, calls it a “misreading of the facts” that could erode military morale—exactly the risk of unvetted narratives.

    In sum, Cox’s framework reframes the WaPo/NYT story from “potential war crime” to “lawful targeting of a persistent objective,” where deaths are incidental to sinking/denial, not the goal. Without hard evidence (e.g., drone logs from probes), the survivor-hunt angle stays alleged speculation—likely amplified by motivated leakers.

    Here’s an interview by Megan Kelly with Brian Cox where he discusses some of the flaws in the media’s narrative.

    New Reporting Casts Doubt on WashPost Narrative About Hegseth’s Deadly “Second Strike,” w/ Brian Cox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68tpRybdmDI

  46. Many years ago I was a NYC police officer. We were taught “shoot to stop” which means shoot to kill. Once the decision is made to use deadly physical force, you shoot to stop the threat

  48. Anybody see any identification markings on the boats? Boats without identification are normally considered pirates. Pirates, if captured, are typically given a fair and speedy trial and hanged.

  50. The moment they agreed to the mission they also agreed to any problems arising from the mission.

  51. In for a dime
    In for a dollar
    When the boat’s blown up
    It’s sea water you’ll swaller

    Actually
    the sea
    will swaller
    you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Web Analytics
↑