US Special Forces Face Backlash for Alleged 'Double-Tap' Attack on Boat Survivors, Pentagon Pushes Back
The US military has pushed back against allegations that a second strike on the alleged drug boat in the Caribbean was a "double-tap" attack, aimed at killing survivors of a previous strike. The term "double tap" typically refers to a follow-on strike to kill rescuers or first responders.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth acknowledged the US forces conducted a follow-up strike but denied personally seeing survivors and described it as an "explosion in fire and smoke." However, he stopped short of condemning the attack, saying that Admiral Frank Bradley "made the right call" after Hegseth left the room.
Critics argue that quibbling over technical definitions misses the reality that the strike was a summary execution of men clinging to the wreckage. The military has carried out 21 known attacks, killing at least 83 civilians in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September.
Experts say the strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings because they target civilians, even suspected smugglers who do not pose an imminent threat. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concerns about the legality of the attacks.
The Pentagon's Law of War Manual states that persons incapacitated by wounds or shipwreck are in a helpless state and should not be targeted. Capitol Hill staffers say Admiral Bradley is only set to meet with Congress, but it remains to be seen whether he will face questions on this issue.
Critics argue that the strikes represent a widening escalation of US military actions in the region, which are already seen as tantamount to murder by many experts and lawmakers.
The US military has pushed back against allegations that a second strike on the alleged drug boat in the Caribbean was a "double-tap" attack, aimed at killing survivors of a previous strike. The term "double tap" typically refers to a follow-on strike to kill rescuers or first responders.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth acknowledged the US forces conducted a follow-up strike but denied personally seeing survivors and described it as an "explosion in fire and smoke." However, he stopped short of condemning the attack, saying that Admiral Frank Bradley "made the right call" after Hegseth left the room.
Critics argue that quibbling over technical definitions misses the reality that the strike was a summary execution of men clinging to the wreckage. The military has carried out 21 known attacks, killing at least 83 civilians in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September.
Experts say the strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings because they target civilians, even suspected smugglers who do not pose an imminent threat. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concerns about the legality of the attacks.
The Pentagon's Law of War Manual states that persons incapacitated by wounds or shipwreck are in a helpless state and should not be targeted. Capitol Hill staffers say Admiral Bradley is only set to meet with Congress, but it remains to be seen whether he will face questions on this issue.
Critics argue that the strikes represent a widening escalation of US military actions in the region, which are already seen as tantamount to murder by many experts and lawmakers.
. The Pentagon's trying to downplay it, but like, come on, if they're admitting to a "double-tap" attack, that's just messed up 
. The fact that they're only saying it was an accident and not taking full responsibility for the deaths is, like, super sketchy 
. I'm all for keeping the region safe, but this isn't the way to do it, you feel? 
. And what's with the lack of accountability from these folks? They're just making excuses and dodging the question 
. The Law of War Manual is clear: you can't just kill people who are already hurt or unable to defend themselves 
.
.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this 
That doesn't change what happened - those guys got wiped out by our own forces. And yeah, I get that some dude in Congress is gonna ask about this and all, but we're still talking about 83+ civilians who died in a summary execution situation. That's just straight up 
... can't say more than that 
like, shouldn't we be tryin' to save lives here? not kill 'em 
what's next, are they just gonna keep doin' whatever they feel like without any consequences? 
but it seems like US military is all about "interpreting" the rules to suit their agenda 
and lawmakers need to step up and stop this madness ASAP 
My friend says it's summary execution and that's not cool at all. But then again, those people were just trying to escape on a boat, what did they expect? 
I don't know, maybe it's just me being confused 
. The Pentagon's trying to spin it, but let's be real, it sounds like they're trying to avoid accountability for what basically amounts to a mass execution of people who just happened to be on the wrong boat at the wrong time 
. And what's with the Pentagon trying to distance themselves from the whole thing? They should be taking responsibility for their actions, not just saying "oh, we didn't see them" 
. I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the fact that people are dying or the fact that our military is basically getting away with it