Military Lawyer: Second Strike on Drug Boat Survivors Violated Laws of War

Legal Analysis of the Caribbean Strike

• 🎯 The White House defended Admiral Frank Bradley's order for a follow-up strike on a suspected drug boat, stating he acted within his authority.
• ⚖️ However, retired Maj. Gen. Steven Lepper, former Air Force Deputy Judge Advocate General, asserts that the second strike was a violation of the laws of war, regardless of whether the admiral or a higher authority issued the order.
• ⚠️ Lepper explains that the order to conduct the second strike was illegal and should not have been executed by anyone in the "kill chain."

"No Quarter" Orders and International Law

• 🗣️ A reported directive from the Defense Secretary to "kill everybody" suggests a "no quarter" order, meaning no one should be left alive after a strike.
• 🚫 This implies that surrendering individuals or survivors of an initial attack should not be targeted, especially if they no longer pose a threat.
• 🚨 Targeting survivors is distinct from pursuing retreating enemy fighters, as survivors are considered hors de combat.

Hors de Combat and Targeting Prohibitions

• 🌊 International law, as outlined in the Defense Department's Law of War Manual, protects individuals who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.
• 🚫 These individuals are hors de combat and targeting them is strictly prohibited.
• ⚓ If surveillance footage showed survivors clinging to wreckage, targeting them would be an unlawful order with no justification under international or U.S. law.

Applicability of Laws of War to Special Operations

• 🎖️ The laws of war apply equally to all military personnel, including special operations forces and regular military forces.
• 📜 The manual explicitly uses the example of shooting survivors in the water as an unlawful order, irrespective of the unit carrying it out.
• 🚫 There is no distinction among different military branches or units when it comes to adherence to the laws of war.