By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration has controversially justified the killing of suspected cocaine smugglers as “unlawful combatants” in an “armed struggle” against the United States, even if they are unarmed and pose no immediate threat. In a specific instance, Adm. Frank M. Bradley ordered a second missile strike on survivors of an initial strike on a drug smuggling boat. According to reports, this second strike was carried out because the survivors had radioed for help and were seen as still “in the fight.” Critics argue the second strike was a war crime, violating the law-of-war rules regarding shipwrecked individuals. This defense reveals the complexities of applying the law of war to a scenario that, according to the article, doesn’t really exist.
Read the original article here
Boat Attack Commander Says He Had To Kill 2 Survivors Because They Were Still Trying To Smuggle Cocaine – Adm. Frank M. Murphy reportedly told lawmakers a controversial second strike was necessary because drugs on the burning vessel remained a threat. This statement, if true, paints a grim picture.
Let’s unpack this. The claim is that a commander ordered the killing of two survivors of a boat attack, and the justification was that they were still engaged in smuggling cocaine. The first question that pops into anyone’s mind is, isn’t smuggling cocaine, while a crime, not typically a capital offense? It certainly shouldn’t justify the extrajudicial execution of people who were already, presumably, attempting to survive after a prior attack. The narrative, as presented, strains credulity.
The idea that survivors, struggling to stay afloat after their vessel was hit, posed an immediate threat to anyone, let alone the United States, by virtue of still being in proximity to some drugs is absurd. The logistics alone make it ridiculous. How would they, without a functional boat, a safe location, or any reasonable chance of success, continue to smuggle anything? And to consider them such a threat as to warrant a second strike, a second act of lethal force? It makes absolutely no sense.
The official explanation, that a second missile was required to prevent the recovery of cocaine, is equally dubious. Cocaine, after exposure to water, is a ruined product. It seems unlikely that it could be salvaged and delivered, much less that a small quantity recovered from the wreckage would be considered a major threat. It’s hard to imagine anyone believing this narrative.
The situation described screams of a cover-up. The suggestion of a second strike, targeting survivors, points towards something being hidden. It also suggests someone taking the blame for someone else’s mistake or bad decision.
The idea that survivors were using cocaine as flotation devices is, frankly, insulting. It seems like the kind of far-fetched excuse that an intelligence officer might come up with in a bad spy movie. There’s nothing credible about it.
The legality of such actions is clearly in question. The US Department of Defense Law of War Manual explicitly states that orders to fire upon shipwrecked persons are illegal. The fact that the commander would give such an order is a clear admission of a crime. A war crime, in fact.
And then there’s the broader context: the apparent transformation of the military. If this is true, that seems to indicate that the military has become more politically involved, and more willing to ignore international law and human rights.
The defense, that the survivors were “still in the fight,” is a weak justification for an illegal act. It’s a phrase that could be used to justify any action, no matter how immoral. It’s nothing more than a post-hoc justification for an act that was almost certainly illegal, and likely a deliberate murder. It brings to mind the excuse of “following orders” – a classic defense in war crime trials.
And finally, it’s worth noting the timing. These incidents, this type of rhetoric, and the justifications used for violence all make us question the direction things are heading. The fact that there’s no evidence, just a flimsy excuse and a command to silence anyone with the truth, only strengthens that feeling. The whole scenario stinks of authoritarianism and a frightening disregard for law.