On September 2, 2025, a boat transporting illegal drugs in the Caribbean was attacked by U.S. naval forces which killed two crew members and left two survivors allegedly clinging to wreckage. Some forty minutes later, a second attack was launched, destroying the remaining wreckage and killing the two survivors. Concerns that the second strike might constitute a war crime have arisen, particularly after rumors circulated that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had allegedly issued the order to “kill them all.”

Hegseth has hit drug smugglers with a reality that is beginning to set in, letting them know, “We will find you and we will sink you.” They recognize they no longer will receive ordinary law-enforcement treatment but, instead, will suffer the sting of U.S. military power when they seek to reach American shores. Like U.S. military operations during the Vietnam war sought to dismantle enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, maritime drug routes are being similarly disrupted.

The admiral in charge of the recent operation, Admiral Frank Bradley, reports that Hegseth did not give any kill order for a second strike as the media has erroneously suggested. He does maintain, however, that the two survivors remained a legitimate target. The answer as to whether or not they were is “maybe.”

An interesting parallel to understanding this and what international law might tell us about their status requires examining what protection is mandated for a parachutist on the battlefield.

Article 42 of Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions protects parachutists depending upon their mission. Airborne troops and special forces jumping out of an aircraft to conduct ground combat operations are not protected. Thus, as they descend in the air, they become fair game for targeting.

However, a parachuting pilot or crewmember who is evacuating a disabled plane is considered “hors de combat” (out of combat) and is protected while in the air. Upon reaching the ground, he must be given a chance to surrender. Should he fail to do so, he reinjects himself into a combat role.

But, such a parachutist ejecting from a disabled aircraft and descending, may surrender his protected role if he chooses to act aggressively, such as by pulling out a weapon and shooting during his descent. Such an act re-establishes his status as a combatant.

Based on the above rationale, then, was the second attack killing the two survivors a legal or an illegal one? The answer undoubtedly depends upon whether they had somehow reinjected themselves into a combat role.

Initial reports suggest this is the defense being raised by the Navy as the two survivors allegedly discarded their protected survival role for the unprotected role of a combatant. It is claimed their actions presented an ongoing threat to U.S. naval forces and therefore removed the survivors from the protection mandated by international law, as they were reportedly still on their radios orchestrating operations.

Two facts are obvious from this incident: first, had the boat delivered its cargo, unknown numbers of Americans would have died; and, second, we can count on President Donald Trump’s political opponents immediately siding with the survival of cartel members over Americans, even to the point of claiming Trump is committing murder on the high seas while the actions of these drug dealers is neglected.

Further investigation is definitely needed to determine if sufficient cause existed to justify the second strike. But clearly these cartel-affiliated boat attacks—of which there have now been a total of 21—are having a huge impact in saving American lives as drugs entering the U.S. via maritime routes have decreased by 91%.

Unfortunately for the cartels, their cruises are ending with more bang than expected!

Image: Public domain.