A top US Navy Admiral has denied receiving a “kill them all” order from the Pentagon chief before a controversial second missile strike killed survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat. The testimony, delivered in a closed-door briefing to US lawmakers, adds a new layer to a growing scandal that places Washington’s aggressive anti-narcotics campaign under intense legal and ethical scrutiny.

The core of the issue is a September 2nd operation where a US military strike targeted a vessel in the Caribbean, leaving two survivors clinging to the wreckage who were then killed by a follow-up strike. This has sparked bipartisan concern and allegations of potential war crimes, prompting a congressional investigation.

Admiral Frank Bradley, who commanded the attack, told legislators he was not ordered to grant “no quarter” or kill all survivors. However, lawmakers who viewed classified video of the incident emerged with starkly different and deeply troubling interpretations.

A Tale of Two Videos

The footage has become a political flashpoint. Republican Senator Tom Cotton defended the operation as “righteous strikes,” stating he saw two survivors “trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs… back over so they could stay in the fight.” He insisted the second strike was lawful and necessary.

Democrats painted a far more disturbing picture. Representative Jim Himes, a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the footage “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.” He described seeing “two individuals in clear distress, without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.”

Legality Under Fire

The incident has thrust the entire legal basis of the US military's anti-drug operations into the spotlight. Since September, over 80 people have been killed in more than 20 strikes against suspected “narco-terrorists.” Legal experts and human rights officials argue these actions fall outside the laws of armed conflict.

• International Law: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated the strikes “violate international human rights law,” arguing that drug trafficking is a law enforcement issue, not a military one.
• Rules of Engagement: Legal scholars note that lethal force is only justified under human rights law when there is an imminent threat to life, a standard that shipwrecked survivors would not meet.
• US Law: The Pentagon's own Law of War manual explicitly prohibits attacking survivors of shipwrecks, making a second strike legally perilous.

While the White House has defended the strikes as lawful, the starkly conflicting accounts from lawmakers and the growing international condemnation suggest the controversy is far from over. Calls are mounting for the public release of the video, a move that could either vindicate the military's actions or confirm the worst fears of its critics.