[aioseo_breadcrumbs]

Did US Forces Commit a War Crime off Venezuela?

Questions swirl over a second strike — and whether it crossed a legal line.

A storm is building in Washington.

Members of Congress say they will investigate whether the US military broke the law during a strike on a suspected drug-trafficking vessel in the Caribbean—an operation that allegedly ended with two survivors being killed after the first attack.

The White House insists the strike was lawful.
Human rights groups say the reported actions would amount to murder—or even a war crime.

And at the center of the controversy is a chilling question:

If someone survived the first strike… were they then deliberately hunted down?

What allegedly happened

According to the White House, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized strikes on September 2, destroying a vessel carrying 11 people. It was described as the first strike in a broader campaign targeting suspected drug traffickers off the coast of Venezuela.

But scrutiny exploded after a report said the commander overseeing the operation ordered a second strike—not to disable the boat, but to kill two survivors who were allegedly clinging to wreckage in the water.

The reason, the report claimed, was to comply with an order that everyone be killed.

The White House has denied that account. And crucial details remain disputed:

Hegseth says he watched the first strike remotely in real time
He claims he didn’t see survivors and left for another meeting
Hours later, he said he learned Admiral Frank Bradley ordered a follow-up strike

The administration has not publicly acknowledged that there were survivors from the first strike. But it has defended the second strike as justified.

Even President Trump weighed in, saying he wouldn’t have wanted a second strike—and that he would look into it.

Hegseth, however, defended the commander’s handling and said: “We have his back.”

A wider campaign — and a rising death toll

The September 2 strike wasn’t a one-off.

Since then, there have reportedly been at least 21 strikes targeting suspected drug shipments, with more than 80 deaths. The Trump administration has framed the campaign as part of a broader push against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who the administration calls illegitimate.

In short: this isn’t just about one boat.

It’s about a growing campaign, expanding force, and a legal argument that could reshape what “war” means.

The legal question that won’t go away

Here’s the core issue:

If the people on that boat posed no imminent threat, then killing them could be considered murder under US and international law.

But the US government is defending the strikes using a different framing:
that it’s effectively at war with drug cartels, treated as armed groups.

The administration has argued the strikes follow the law of armed conflict—rules meant to govern war, including requirements to:

distinguish between civilians and combatants
avoid disproportionate civilian harm
limit force to legitimate military objectives
avoid unnecessary suffering

It has also claimed cartels pose an immediate threat to the United States—describing narcotics as a weapon and pointing to the deaths linked to illegal drugs.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have condemned the strikes. And several legal experts argue drug cartels don’t fit the international definition of an “armed group” like al Qaeda—organizations with sustained violence tied to political or ideological goals.

Another major point: Congress has not authorized war against these groups.

Critics say labeling cartels as terrorists doesn’t automatically legalize military killing. They argue US strikes against al Qaeda were considered legal largely because Congress specifically authorized force after the September 11 attacks—not simply because al Qaeda was labeled terrorist.

The second strike is where things get darkest

Even if the broader campaign were authorized, some former military lawyers say the alleged second strike—if it knowingly killed shipwreck survivors—could cross into war crime territory.

Why?

Because the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual forbids attacking combatants who are:

incapacitated
unconscious
shipwrecked
so long as they’re not taking part in hostilities or trying to escape.

The manual even cites firing on shipwreck survivors as an example of a “clearly illegal” order—one that should be refused.

If investigators confirm survivors existed, and confirm they were knowingly targeted…

That isn’t just controversial.
That’s potentially criminal.

Can anyone stop or challenge the strikes?

Congress has tools:

subpoena officials
limit the president’s use of force
cut funding

Some Republicans have been hesitant to confront the president, but concern appears to be growing. Admiral Bradley is expected to face questions in a classified briefing.

Court challenges, however, would be difficult. Judges often defer to the president on national security, and it’s unclear who would have legal standing to sue.

International enforcement is also unlikely. The US is not a party to the International Criminal Court, and it holds veto power at the UN Security Council—making global accountability complicated.