Pentagon strike raises questions about military lawyer oversight

The Pentagon’s account of the September 2 “double faucet” assault that killed two survivors of an preliminary assault on a suspected Venezuelan drug boat is coming underneath renewed scrutiny after ABC Information reported {that a} army lawyer was current when Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley approved the follow-up assault. The brand new element raises a sharper authorized query: If real-time authorized recommendation was out there, what recommendation did the Decide Advocate Normal (JAG) give when Bradley approved a second spherical of lethal pressure?

Pentagon officers have described the operation as a counter-terrorism mission focusing on members of the Venezuelan prison community Tren de Aragua. Specialists say the excellence issues as a result of U.S. counterterrorism missions usually construct a JAG into the operations middle to find out whether or not a goal stays lawful — surveillance that isn’t typical of routine counternarcotics maritime patrols.

Todd Huntley, a former Navy JAG officer with the U.S. Particular Operations Command, stated the presence of an lawyer would match that invoice.

“In regular maritime counter-narcotics operations, a JAG doesn’t advise in actual time as a result of these missions hardly ever contain deadly pressure,” Huntley stated. “However these assaults are being handled as counter-terrorism assaults. The targets occur to be on the water.”

On these missions, he stated, the JAG participates immediately within the real-time focusing on cycle. “The JAG works with intelligence and operations personnel to make sure that the goal is lawful, that the deliberate assault is lawful and whether or not the commander has the authority to approve it or ought to ship it larger up.” He emphasised that commanders, not attorneys, finally make the decision. “JAGs solely advise. They can not override the commander’s determination.”

TRUMP ANNOUNCES that the US army carried out a ‘lethal assault’ on a Venezuelan drug boat within the Caribbean

Venezuelan ship destroyed throughout US army assault on Venezuela on September 2, 2025. (@realDonaldTrump by way of Fact Social)

The central authorized dispute now facilities on the situation of the survivors on the time of the second assault. In response to ABC NewsU.S. personnel believed the 2 males within the water might have been calling for assist, probably in an try to carry reinforcements. The Pentagon didn’t reply to Fox Information Digital’s requests for remark.

In response to the US Regulation of Battle Guide, attacking individuals rendered ‘helpless’ because of ‘wounds, illness or shipwreck’ is expressly prohibited and described as ‘dishonourable and inhumane’. Shipwrecked people are protected except they resume hostile motion or in any other case regain the flexibility to pose an imminent menace.

Calling for assist doesn’t robotically take away these protections. Authorized specialists say the important thing query is whether or not US forces had credible proof that the survivors have been attempting to direct additional hostilities – or whether or not they merely clung to the rubble and made misery calls.

The US has carried out greater than 20 assaults on suspected drug traffickers. (Trump/fact social)

The Pentagon has stated Bradley approved the second strike that killed the 2 alleged traffickers, and that Secretary of State Pete Hegseth was not concerned in that call. Officers say Hegseth monitored the preliminary assault however didn’t overview footage of the next assault.

Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Power JAG who suggested on operations at U.S. Central Command, stated she could be “shocked there wasn’t a JAG current” if the administration thought-about the mission an armed battle. With ABC reporting {that a} lawyer was within the room, she stated the main focus is shifting to what the operations middle understood in regards to the standing of the boys within the water.

SPEC OPS CHIEF ORDERS DEADLY STRIKE IN THE CARIBBEAN ‘IN SELF-DEFENSE’ USING HEGSETH’S DRAWING, WHITE HOUSE SAYS

However she cautioned that the presence of a lawyer doesn’t change the underlying authorized norms. Castaways, she stated, will stay protected except they take clear steps to recommit to the battle. “Whether or not a JAG was consulted is just about irrelevant right here,” she stated. ‘You do not want a lawyer to know you can’t kill shipwrecked folks. That is the basic instance we use in skilled army training of a clearly unlawful order.”

“Even when they’re the worst criminals on this planet, you do not kill them if they’re helpless and clinging to the facet of a ship,” she stated. “Killing shipwrecked sailors is a textbook conflict crime.”

She additionally rejected the Pentagon’s declare that the survivors may have summoned further boats. “The concept that survivors may have requested for assist is totally irrelevant,” she stated. “Until they have been actively taking pictures, they remained protected and couldn’t be legally attacked.”

Hegseth and Bradley have continued to defend the operation. Hegseth wrote on

President Trump has additionally repeatedly highlighted the strikes, releasing a video of the second engagement with Fact Social and praising the marketing campaign in opposition to what he calls “narco-terrorists.”

Secretary of Battle Pete Hegseth, left, and Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, proper. Hegseth wrote on (Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu by way of Getty Photos; USSOCOM)

With new experiences {that a} JAG was bodily current, and with authorized specialists emphasizing that castaways retain safety except they rejoin the battle, the excellent challenge is the particular info the operations middle relied on when Bradley approved the second strike.

Did the JAG conclude that the survivors had regained the flexibility to pose a right away menace? Did the lawyer object? Did the operations staff interpret the alleged name for assist as an energetic step towards hostile motion?

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Till the Pentagon releases a fuller account, the legality of the follow-up assault — and the function of the army lawyer who allegedly witnessed it — stays sharply disputed.