Navy Adm. Frank Bradley, accompanied by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, arrives for a closed-door classified meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Dec. 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik / Getty ImagesPentagon Officials Face Congressional Scrutiny
Top military officials arrived at the Capitol Thursday morning to brief Congressional leaders on the Trump administration's controversial September 2 strike against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, provided classified testimony to leaders of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees behind closed doors.
Bradley presented video footage from the September attack and walked through his decision-making process during the operation, according to sources familiar with the briefing. The classified briefing comes as lawmakers from both parties demand answers about a mission that has sparked international condemnation and raised serious legal questions.
The September 2 Double-Tap Strike Controversy
The strike that triggered this Congressional inquiry targeted what the administration described as a Venezuelan drug trafficking vessel operating off the coast of South America. The mission involved an initial attack that disabled the boat, followed by a second strike that killed two survivors who were attempting to climb back onto the damaged vessel.
The Washington Post's revelation of this "double-tap" strike last week ignited bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill. The practice of striking survivors has drawn accusations from some Democrats that the action could constitute a war crime under international humanitarian law, though the administration maintains the operation was both legal and justified.
Hegseth's Authorization and Bradley's Decision
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that Adm. Bradley, as mission commander, made the decision to authorize the follow-on strike. Sources indicated that survivors were visible in the water and attempting to re-board the vessel when the second attack was ordered.
The command structure and authorization process have become focal points of the investigation. Hegseth has defended Bradley's actions while taking responsibility for the broader policy framework that governs these operations against designated terrorist organizations.
Legal Questions and War Crime Allegations
The legality of the September strike has become a flashpoint between the administration and its critics. International humanitarian law experts have questioned whether targeting individuals attempting to escape a sinking vessel violates protections for combatants who are hors de combat, or out of action.
Congressional members have expressed deep concerns about the precedent such strikes set for American military operations. The bipartisan scrutiny reflects unease about both the tactical decisions made during the mission and the broader legal framework the administration is using to justify operations without explicit Congressional authorization.
Administration's Legal Justification
The Trump administration argues it possesses legal authority to conduct these strikes based on its designation of drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Officials contend that because U.S. troops are not directly in harm's way during these operations, traditional authorization requirements do not apply.
This legal interpretation has been challenged by constitutional scholars and members of Congress who argue that military strikes of this nature require legislative approval. The administration's position represents an expansion of executive authority in counter-narcotics operations.
Operation Southern Spear's Broader Campaign
The September incident was merely the first in what has become an extensive military campaign. Since early September, the administration's Operation Southern Spear has destroyed more than 20 boats and resulted in over 80 deaths in waters off the South American coast.
The scale and intensity of these operations had already attracted Congressional scrutiny before the double-tap controversy emerged. Lawmakers have questioned the strategic objectives, rules of engagement, and diplomatic consequences of the ongoing campaign.
International Response and Diplomatic Fallout
Venezuela has condemned the strikes as violations of international law and sovereignty, though the operations reportedly occur in international waters. Regional allies, including Colombia, have expressed concerns about the militarization of counter-narcotics efforts and the potential for escalation.
The diplomatic ramifications extend beyond South America, with human rights organizations calling for independent investigations. The administration maintains that aggressive action against drug trafficking networks is necessary to protect American interests and combat the flow of narcotics into the United States.
Read More:
0 Comments