The Pentagon’s handling of the September 2 strike against Venezuelan drug traffickers has raised serious legal concerns following revelations about the presence of a military lawyer during the operation. Initially framed as a counterterrorism effort, the operation’s details have shifted the narrative, particularly with the newfound knowledge that Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley approved the follow-on strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack.
The crux of the issue lies in the advice provided by the judge advocate general (JAG) at the time of the decision. Military operations typically include this legal oversight, especially when lethal force is involved. Todd Huntley, a former Navy JAG officer, explained that standard maritime counter-narcotics operations do not require real-time legal consultations, as lethal force is not typically on the table. However, the treatment of this incident as a counterterrorism strike has changed that dynamic.
Huntley noted, “In normal maritime counter-narcotics operations, a JAG isn’t advising in real time because those missions rarely involve lethal force. But these strikes are being handled as counterterrorism strikes.” This suggests that involvement from a legal advisor during the targeting decision was crucial and underscores the higher legal stakes for this operation. The JAG’s role is to assess and confirm the legality of the targeting, but ultimately, the commander’s decision prevails.
The situation becomes more complicated when examining the status of the two survivors at the time they were killed. Some military personnel believed the men might have been signaling for assistance, which brings into play U.S. Law of War Manual provisions against targeting individuals who are rendered helpless. Experts highlight that an attack on such individuals is not only legally questionable but also considered “dishonorable and inhumane.”
Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force JAG, pointed out, “Whether a JAG was consulted is almost irrelevant here. You don’t need a lawyer to know you can’t kill shipwrecked survivors.” This stark statement emphasizes that the laws governing warfare offer clear protections for individuals who are incapacitated or in distress. VanLandingham argues that, regardless of their past actions, the current state of the survivors necessitated their protection under international law.
Despite mounting criticism, Hegseth and Bradley have defended their actions. Hegseth expressed unwavering support for Bradley on social media, referring to him as “an American hero” and affirming confidence in his decisions. President Trump has also highlighted the strikes, framing them within a broader campaign against what he terms “narcoterrorists.”
The legal debate now hinges on what intelligence was at the operations center’s disposal when Bradley made the decision to proceed with the second strike. Did the JAG indicate that the survivors posed an imminent threat? Did they protest the order? This uncertainty casts a long shadow over the operation’s legality, leaving many questions unanswered. Until the Pentagon offers a detailed account, the justification for the follow-on strike remains in dispute, and concerns regarding potential violations of international law continue to loom large.
"*" indicates required fields
