Pentagon strike raises questions about military lawyer oversight

The Pentagon’s account of the September 2 “double tap” strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack on a suspected Venezuelan drug boat is coming under renewed scrutiny after ABC News reported that a military lawyer was present when Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley authorized the follow-on strike. The new detail raises a sharper legal question: if real-time legal counsel was available, what advice did the judge advocate general (JAG) provide when Bradley approved a second round of lethal force?

Pentagon officials have framed the operation as a counterterrorism mission targeting members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua criminal network. Experts say that distinction matters because U.S. counterterrorism missions normally embed a JAG in the operations center to determine whether a target remains lawful — oversight not typical for routine maritime counter-narcotics patrols.

Todd Huntley, a former Navy JAG officer at U.S. Special Operations Command, said the presence of a lawyer would fit that framework.

“In normal maritime counter-narcotics operations, a JAG isn’t advising in real time because those missions rarely involve lethal force,” Huntley said. “But these strikes are being handled as counterterrorism strikes. The targets just happen to be on the water.”

In those missions, he said, the JAG participates directly in the real-time targeting cycle. “The JAG works with intelligence and operations personnel to make sure the target is lawful, that the planned strike is lawful, and whether the commander has the authority to approve it or needs to send it higher.” He emphasized that commanders, not attorneys, ultimately make the call. “JAGs only advise. They can’t override the commander’s decision.”

TRUMP ANNOUNCES US MILITARY CONDUCTED ‘LETHAL STRIKE’ ON VENEZUELAN DRUG BOAT IN CARIBBEAN

The central legal dispute now turns on the condition of the survivors at the time of the second strike. According to ABC News, U.S. personnel believed the two men in the water may have been calling for help, potentially attempting to bring reinforcements. The Pentagon did not respond to Fox news digital’s requests for comment. 

Under the U.S. Law of War Manual, attacking persons rendered “helpless” due to “wounds, sickness or shipwreck” is explicitly prohibited and described as “dishonorable and inhumane.” Shipwrecked individuals are protected unless they resume hostile action or otherwise regain the capacity to pose an immediate threat.

Calling for help does not automatically remove those protections. Legal experts say the key question is whether U.S. forces had credible evidence that the survivors were attempting to direct further hostilities — or whether they were simply clinging to debris and making distress calls.

The Pentagon has said Bradley authorized the second strike that killed the two alleged traffickers, and that War Secretary Pete Hegseth was not involved in that decision. Officials say Hegseth monitored the first strike but did not view the footage of the follow-on strike.

Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force JAG who advised on operations at U.S. Central Command, said she “would be surprised that there wasn’t a JAG” present if the administration viewed the mission as armed conflict. With ABC now reporting that a lawyer was in the room, she said attention shifts to what the operations center understood about the men’s status in the water.

SPEC OPS CHIEF ORDERED DEADLY CARIBBEAN STRIKE ‘IN SELF-DEFENSE’ WITH HEGSETH’S SIGN-OFF, WHITE HOUSE SAYS

But she cautioned that the presence of an attorney does not change the underlying legal standards. Shipwrecked personnel, she said, remain protected unless they take clear steps to rejoin the fight. “Whether a JAG was consulted is almost irrelevant here,” she said. “You don’t need a lawyer to know you can’t kill shipwrecked survivors. This is the classic example we use in professional military education of a clearly unlawful order.”

“Even if they’re the worst criminals in the world, you don’t kill them once they’re helpless and clinging to the side of a boat,” she said. “Killing shipwrecked persons is a textbook war crime.”

She also rejected the Pentagon’s claim that the survivors could have summoned additional boats. “The idea that survivors could have called for backup is absolutely irrelevant,” she said. “Unless they were actively shooting, they remained protected and could not be lawfully targeted.”

Hegseth and Bradley have continued to defend the operation. Hegseth wrote on X that Bradley “is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support,” adding that he stands by Bradley’s decisions “on the September 2 mission and all others since.”

President Trump has also repeatedly highlighted the strikes, releasing video of the second engagement on Truth Social and praising the campaign against what he calls “narcoterrorists.”

With new reporting that a JAG was physically present, and with legal experts emphasizing that shipwrecked personnel retain protection unless they rejoin the fight, the unresolved issue is what specific intelligence the operations center relied upon when Bradley approved the second strike.

Did the JAG conclude that the survivors had regained the capacity to pose an imminent threat? Did the attorney object? Did the operations team interpret the alleged call for help as an active step toward hostile action?

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Until the Pentagon releases a fuller accounting, the legality of the follow-on strike — and the role of the military lawyer who reportedly witnessed it — remains sharply contested.