A US senator says a war crime may have occurred. This concerns a September drug boat strike. Senator Chris Van Hollen made the statement. He spoke on Sunday. The strike happened in the Caribbean. It targeted a suspected drug trafficking vessel. Reports allege a dire order was given. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth supposedly issued a verbal command. He allegedly ordered all individuals on board eliminated. This happened before the Sept. 2 operation. The US administration denies these claims. A report alleged a commander ordered a second strike. This strike aimed to kill two survivors. It was to comply with the directive. Van Hollen finds this deeply concerning. He believes killing survivors is a war crime. This holds true even if the US is in an armed conflict with drug gangs. If not in an armed conflict, he stated it is “plain murder.”
The Initial Strike and Broader Campaign
The US military conducted the first strike on Sept. 2, 2025. It hit a vessel in the Caribbean. The boat allegedly was smuggling drugs from Venezuela. President Trump announced the attack. He called the target “loaded” with narcotics. The vessel was reportedly destroyed. It sank off the coast of Trinidad. The operation killed eleven people. These individuals were allegedly members of Tren de Aragua. This is a designated terrorist organization. The administration framed this as a war on cartels. It aimed to stop drug flow to the US. This event marked a shift in strategy. Previous operations involved boarding vessels. They focused on seizing drugs and making arrests. The new approach uses lethal force preemptively. This campaign has expanded. Strikes now include the Eastern Pacific Ocean. More than 21 strikes have occurred since September. At least 83 deaths have been reported. The US claims these groups are “narcoterrorists.” However, evidence has not been widely publicized.
Allegations of a Second Strike
Recent news reports have raised serious questions. These reports detail the Sept. 2 incident. They claim Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a specific verbal order. This order was to “kill everybody” on board. Commanders monitored the first strike via drone. They saw the vessel engulfed in flames. Then, a disturbing discovery was made. Two men were still alive. They clung to the burning wreckage. The Special Operations commander overseeing the attack acted. He reportedly ordered a second missile strike. This was to comply with Hegseth’s directive. This “double-tap” strike killed the two survivors. This alleged sequence has drawn significant criticism. Legal experts call it a violation of international law. They deem it a potential war crime. Some call it “murder.”
Key Reactions and Denials
Senator Van Hollen is not alone in his concern. Many lawmakers are calling for answers. Senator Tim Kaine called it a “serious illegal act” if true. He stated it “rises to the level of a war crime.” The Pentagon has strongly denied the allegations. A spokesperson called the report’s narrative “completely false.” Secretary Hegseth himself dismissed the reporting. He labeled it “fake news.” He stated the strikes are “lethal, kinetic strikes.” He said their intent is to stop drugs and kill narco-terrorists. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also dismissed the report. President Trump defended Hegseth. He stated the secretary denied giving such orders. Trump also said he “wouldn’t have wanted” survivors harmed. However, the US administration has not provided evidence to back claims of drug trafficking. This lack of proof fuels skepticism.
Legal Ramifications and Investigations
International law governs armed conflict. It strictly prohibits targeting survivors. Killing those no longer fighting is illegal. This violates the laws of war. Former military lawyers agree. They state such orders constitute “war crimes, murder, or both.” They emphasize the duty to disobey illegal orders. The Pentagon claims the strikes are lawful. They argue the US is in an “armed conflict” with cartels. This legal framework is disputed. Critics argue these actions are “extrajudicial killings.” They are not part of a recognized armed conflict. The UN human rights chief urged an investigation. Congress is now stepping in. Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees are investigating. They are seeking a “full accounting” of the operation. This bipartisan effort signals deep concern. It underscores the seriousness of the allegations. The outcome of these investigations is pending.
Broader Implications for News and Policy
These events highlight significant policy debates. They also underscore the role of news reporting. The conflict in the Caribbean region is complex. The administration’s “war on drugs” strategy faces scrutiny. The alleged “kill them all” order has sparked global attention. This significant development in current news offers little comfort. It raises profound questions about US military conduct. It also questions adherence to international norms. The administration faces pressure for transparency. Investigations aim to clarify the facts. The public awaits definitive answers. The entertainment value of war games is far removed from these grim realities. These are matters of life and death. They involve potential violations of international law.