Admiral Denies ‘Kill Them All’ Order Amid Congressional Scrutiny

A Navy admiral testified before Congress on Thursday, asserting there was no directive to execute a “kill them all” order during an attack that resulted in the deaths of two survivors from an alleged drug boat in international waters near Venezuela. Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley clarified that he received no such command from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, as lawmakers continue to investigate the incident that raised significant ethical and legal concerns.

During a classified briefing, Senator Tom Cotton, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, conveyed Bradley’s statement, emphasizing that the admiral was “very clear” about the absence of an order to provide no quarter. Cotton defended the military action while acknowledging the gravity of the situation. Conversely, Democratic lawmakers expressed deep apprehension regarding the rationale behind the attack.

Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, described the survivors as “basically two shirtless people clinging to the bow of a capsized and inoperable boat, drifting in the water.” He criticized the strike, stating, “The order was basically: Destroy the drugs, kill the 11 people on the boat.” Smith is now calling for a comprehensive investigation following a report by The Washington Post that suggested Bradley ordered the second attack to comply with Hegseth’s directive to “kill everybody.”

Concerns about the legality of targeting survivors have prompted legal experts to suggest that such an action could constitute a war crime. The scrutiny intensified after news broke of the attack on September 2, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of individuals already affected by the initial strike.

The Pentagon is under pressure to release video footage of the incident, which was shared during classified briefings attended by congressional leaders. Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services panel, has called for the Pentagon to disclose the video and the legal justification for the military operation. Reed described the footage as “disturbing” but refrained from providing specifics on its contents.

As bipartisan pressures mount, lawmakers are united in their demand for transparency regarding the military’s actions. Reed emphasized that the video could clarify many outstanding questions about the strike and its implications for U.S. military conduct.

In a broader context, the scrutiny of military operations is not limited to this incident. The Pentagon inspector general recently criticized Hegseth for using unapproved messaging apps, which may have jeopardized operational security. Although Hegseth had the authority to declassify information shared in a Signal chat, the report highlighted that such actions posed risks to American servicemembers during sensitive operations.

In light of these revelations, the political landscape surrounding military engagement continues to evolve. Lawmakers are increasingly focused on holding the military accountable for its actions, particularly in operations that result in civilian casualties or raise ethical questions regarding the rules of engagement.

The ongoing dialogue in Congress reflects a growing recognition that military actions must be conducted with strict adherence to both legal and moral standards. As investigations proceed, the implications of the attack and the broader military strategy in international waters will likely remain at the forefront of legislative discussions.