The Conversation (0)
News
White House defends Venezuelan boat strike that killed remaining survivors
Reuters
The White House has been left scrambling to defend the US Navy’s “second strike” of an alleged Venezuelan drug boat as lawful amid tough questions around targeting survivors.
Tensions between US President Donald Trump and Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, have ramped up in recent times, with the White House accusing him of heading up a drug- trafficking cartel.
As part of the US government’s purported efforts to fight drug-smuggling (named Operation Southern Spear), the country’s military has launched attacks on at least 21 vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, killing at least 80 people – all without providing any evidence that the boats, or those onboard, were involved in smuggling.
But, there are ongoing questions around the legalities of an attack on one vessel in particular, which took place after US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth allegedly gave an order to “kill everybody” onboard, according to a US official who spoke to The Washington Post.
When and why did the strikes take place?
On 2 September, a vessel in the Caribbean, which the US government alleges was a drug boat, was first struck by the US Navy SEALs, killing most of the crew onboard and leaving two survivors in the water clinging to wreckage.
Subsequent information reported by CNN and The Washington Post later alleged that a second strike was ordered and took place to kill the remaining survivors in the water. The total death toll was 11 individuals.
The White House has claimed that top US Navy Admiral Frank ‘Mitch’ Bradley ordered the second strike. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has claimed “Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law”.
But the second strike has drawn scrutiny over its questionable legality regarding targeting survivors.
What are people saying?
Mark Kelly – a Senator, retired US Navy captain and one of six Democrats who participated in a video message to military and intelligence personnel telling them they can “refuse illegal orders” – has suggested that the second strike on survivors “seems” to be a war crime.
“Going after survivors in the water; that is clearly not lawful,” Kelly told CNN. “If what has been reported is accurate, I’ve got serious concerns.”
The scrutiny had led to some tense press conference moments for Leavitt as she and the administration have attempted to defend the second strike.
One reporter explained to Leavitt, “the Navy’s own manual of law of war says that specifically firing on survivors from a wrecked vessel is an example of a war crime that’s forbidden under US law,” and asked how the government could claim the second strike was “in full accordance with the law of armed conflict”.
Leavitt responded: “I would reiterate to you the strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
Elsewhere, Leavitt claimed that the follow-up strike was conducted in “self-defence”.
Pete Hegseth wrote on X/Twitter: “Let’s make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since.”
indy100 has contacted the White House for comment.
Why not read…
- The internet thinks Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon operation names are accidentally NSFW
- Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump's MRI release with his own 'results' from Dr Dolittle
- Trump dubbed 'lunatic' after sharing bizarre Michelle Obama conspiracy theory
Sign up to our free indy100 weekly newsletter
Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.