1. 📢 The Disputed Command: What Was the Exact Order?
Did Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's initial "execute order" explicitly or implicitly include a directive to ensure "none of the 11 passengers... should be allowed to survive," as alleged by sources, and what specific intelligence justified this initial order?
The most immediate conflict is the truth of the alleged order. Sources claim Hegseth directed the killing of all 11 passengers, which he and his spokesperson fiercely deny as a "fabrication" and "fake news."
The Pentagon's refusal to disclose the initial order's contents keeps the truth shielded. Congress needs to see the verifiable text or recording of Hegseth's command to determine if the Secretary is liable for ordering an atrocity.
2. 🛡️ Admiral Bradley's Authority: Was the Second Strike an Unlawful Act?
Did Admiral Frank Bradley make the decision to launch the second strike on survivors solely and lawfully "within his authority," as suggested by the White House, or was he acting to fulfill a superior's unlawful order to "kill everyone"?
The White House supports Admiral Bradley, stating he was "well within his authority" to order the second strike.
1 However, The Washington Post report suggests he launched the second strike specifically to "fulfill Hegseth’s initial order to kill everyone."If Bradley ordered the strike to follow a superior's unlawful directive, it makes both the order-giver and the order-follower liable. If he ordered it autonomously, the legal question shifts to the inherent legality of targeting defenseless survivors regardless of a superior's order, which challenges the White House's assertion of his "authority."
3. ⚖️ The Legal Precedent: Does the "War on Terror" Justification Apply?
Can the US legally rely on the "War on Terror" playbook—which justifies killing people transporting threats—to defend the second strike against disabled and defenseless survivors, given that the Laws of War require the rescue of shipwrecked persons?
Hegseth is explicitly leaning on the legal playbook used to justify strikes against those posing a threat to U.S. forces.
The core legal dilemma is whether the narco-terrorist designation and the initial threat justify killing individuals after they have been neutralized and are clinging to wreckage (i.e., they are shipwrecked). This question determines if the second strike was a justifiable elimination of a threat or a violation of fundamental international law.
Adm. Bradley ordered subsequent strikes after seeing survivors primarily because of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's initial "execute order" and the intelligence assessment that classified the vessel's occupants as a continuing imminent threat to the US.
1. ⚔️ Rationale for Ordering the Subsequent Strikes
According to the accounts provided, Adm. Bradley's decision to launch the second strike appears to have been driven by two critical factors:
Fulfilling the Initial Order: Sources allege that Secretary Hegseth's initial "execute order" included a directive to ensure that "none of the 11 passengers aboard the boat should be allowed to survive." When the initial strike left two people clinging to the wreckage, Bradley, as the head of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), reportedly made the decision to launch the second strike "to fulfill Hegseth’s initial order to kill everyone."
Legal Counsel and Threat Assessment: As a highly experienced commander, Bradley would have sought counsel from a military lawyer present in the command center. The decision would have also relied on the intelligence findings that justified classifying the alleged smugglers as a threat to the US. The White House later asserted that Bradley was "well within his authority" to do so, suggesting the military-legal advice supported the action under the existing rules of engagement.
1
2. ⚖️ The Legal and Intelligence Justification
The decision to order the lethal second strike rests on the controversial justification for the entire operation:
The "Narco-Terrorist" Rationale
The rationale for killing the individuals is linked to the "War on Terror" legal playbook established after 9/11. This authority allowed commanders to kill people transporting threats (like IEDs) to US forces.
President Trump sought to extend this legal logic by declaring drug cartels as "foreign terrorist organizations," arguing that drug smugglers posed a threat to Americans comparable to Al-Qaida.
2
The Problem of Imminent Threat
A key question remains: who exactly was on the boats and what threat did they pose? The intelligence community had to assess this threat, and Hegseth would have signed off on it.
Legal experts strongly push back on the comparison between drug smugglers and Al-Qaida, noting that Congress has not provided any specific Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against drug cartels.
For the second strike to be legal, the survivors clinging to the wreckage would still have to be classified as an imminent, existential threat to the US, a stance that clashes directly with the Laws of War, which mandate the protection and rescue of shipwrecked and wounded persons.
Accountability
The political fallout is intense, with Sen. Thom Tillis stating, "If it is substantiated, whoever made that order needs to get the hell out of Washington." This underscores that the central legal question is whether Hegseth's order was an unlawful directive or if Bradley's interpretation of the threat, even after the initial strike, was unlawful.
0 Comments