ABC News Confirms September Caribbean Strike by Trump Administration Was Lawful

[RedrickTheCoat]

ABC's Martha Raddatz on Wednesday's 'World News Tonight' about drug boat-gate: "And tonight, new information: According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back on to the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication with others, and salvaging some of the drugs. Because of that, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets. A JAG officer was also giving legal advice. So, again, David, that video will be key and Admiral Bradley will be on the Hill tomorrow behind closed doors."​

This clearly is not ABC News confirming that the strike was lawful? Is this what OP was talking about?

Also, this whole transcript is kind of funny. The two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike...like wtf are they supposed to do otherwise? They are in the ocean.....They were salvaging some of the drugs? What does that mean exactly? Were they pulling bags of drugs from the ocean back into the boat? and this was after all their comrades were blown to peices? 8 other comrades dead, and they were still focused on getting the remains of the drugs and continuing onwards to America? And They were 'still in the fight'? Be honest, do you really think after suffering a drone strike that killed all their associates and damaged their boat that they were thinking about anything other than their survival? Do you think they were the ones benefiting of the selling of those drugs to such a large amount? Don't forget, these were boats that could have been intercepted rather than drone striked.

This doesn't even consider the fact that these strikes are likely illegal in the first place.

Killing of survivors sparks outrage – but entire US ‘drug boat’ war is legally shaky

Pentagon’s Law of War manual clearly prohibits attack, but justification for whole campaign also faces tough questions

www.theguardian.com

 

[Concerned American]

This clearly is not ABC News confirming that the strike was lawful? Is this what OP was talking about?

Also, this whole transcript is kind of funny. The two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike...like wtf are they supposed to do otherwise? They are in the ocean.....They were salvaging some of the drugs? What does that mean exactly? Were they pulling bags of drugs from the ocean back into the boat? and this was after all their comrades were blown to peices? 8 other comrades dead, and they were still focused on getting the remains of the drugs and continuing onwards to America? And They were 'still in the fight'? Be honest, do you really think after suffering a drone strike that killed all their associates and damaged their boat that they were thinking about anything other than their survival? Do you think they were the ones benefiting of the selling of those drugs to such a large amount? Don't forget, these were boats that could have been intercepted rather than drone striked.

This doesn't even consider the fact that these strikes are likely illegal in the first place.

Killing of survivors sparks outrage – but entire US ‘drug boat’ war is legally shaky

Pentagon’s Law of War manual clearly prohibits attack, but justification for whole campaign also faces tough questions

www.theguardian.com

LMAO! I guess they FAFO. Did you lose a supplier?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Be honest, do you really think after suffering a drone strike that killed all their associates and damaged their boat that they were thinking about anything other than their survival?

Hmmmm.......

Boats have been getting blown out of the water for some time now.

Be honest, you really think they don't know that?

So why were they there?

 

[HikerGuy83]

I thought their "precision strike" "shot out" the boat. So they didn't completely destroy it as they claimed? Otherwise it wouldn't be possible for survivors to attempt to reboard it.

Original story of September 2nd 2025
U.S. military strikes drug-carrying boat from Venezuela, Rubio says

And what has this got to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[Roshambo]

Do the Geneva Convention rules apply?

The Geneva Conventions require that injured enemy combatants be treated humanely, without adverse distinction, and given the necessary medical care, even if they are considered hors de combat.

Key rules include prohibiting violence against them, ensuring they receive urgent medical attention based on medical need, protecting them from pillage and ill-treatment, and providing necessary non-medical aid like food and shelter. Medical personnel and facilities are also protected, and a party to the conflict that must leave wounded behind must leave some medical personnel and equipment with them if possible.

 

[Concerned American]

Do the Geneva Convention rules apply?

The Geneva Conventions require that injured enemy combatants be treated humanely, without adverse distinction, and given the necessary medical care, even if they are considered hors de combat.

Key rules include prohibiting violence against them, ensuring they receive urgent medical attention based on medical need, protecting them from pillage and ill-treatment, and providing necessary non-medical aid like food and shelter. Medical personnel and facilities are also protected, and a party to the conflict that must leave wounded behind must leave some medical personnel and equipment with them if possible.

Both parties have to be signatories to the GC. Narco terrorists that decapitate people and seal them into cans are not following it nor do they know what it says. Try again.

 

[Independent thinker]

And another one bites the dust.


Aren't you leftoids tired of jumping on the fake news bandwagon?

​

​

ABC News has confirmed that the Sept. 2 strike against a cartel-linked cocaine vessel in the Caribbean Sea was legally justified and targeted active threats, countering earlier claims that the operation constituted a "double-tap" attack or war crime.​

​

​

The operation, intended to prevent a major shipment of cocaine from reaching the United States, resulted in the deaths of 11 designated narco-terrorists.​

​

​

Initial reports suggested two men survived the strike, but ABC cited sources familiar with the operation indicating the men reboarded the vessel, attempted to recover narcotics and maintained communication with other smuggling assets, confirming their status as active combatants.​

​

​

The strike was part of a coordinated U.S. military effort to disrupt narcotics trafficking near American waters.​

​

​

Officials emphasized that the operation was conducted under strict legal oversight, with a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer providing guidance to ensure compliance with federal law and established rules of engagement.​

​

​

...​

ABC News Vindicates Trump Admin With Crushing Blow to Left’s Smear Campaign

They're big mad.

resistthemainstream.com

Every president I know in recent and long term memory has bombed terrorist organizations, accidentally killing innocents and bombing some areas twice or more. You can't go after Trump for doing the very same thing other presidents have done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like Democrats will need to fabricate another war crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This clearly is not ABC News confirming that the strike was lawful?

See: Video:

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Geneva Conventions require that injured enemy combatants be treated humanely, without adverse distinction, and given the necessary medical care, even if they are considered hors de combat.

After the engagement is over.
Not during.

 

[Lockback]

Every president I know in recent and long term memory has bombed terrorist organizations, accidentally killing innocents and bombing some areas twice or more. You can't go after Trump for doing the very same thing other presidents have done.

Oh, you wanna bet?
"Hypocrisy" isn't in the Left's vocabulary.

 

[justoffal]

And another one bites the dust.


Aren't you leftoids tired of jumping on the fake news bandwagon?

​

​

ABC News has confirmed that the Sept. 2 strike against a cartel-linked cocaine vessel in the Caribbean Sea was legally justified and targeted active threats, countering earlier claims that the operation constituted a "double-tap" attack or war crime.​

​

​

The operation, intended to prevent a major shipment of cocaine from reaching the United States, resulted in the deaths of 11 designated narco-terrorists.​

​

​

Initial reports suggested two men survived the strike, but ABC cited sources familiar with the operation indicating the men reboarded the vessel, attempted to recover narcotics and maintained communication with other smuggling assets, confirming their status as active combatants.​

​

​

The strike was part of a coordinated U.S. military effort to disrupt narcotics trafficking near American waters.​

​

​

Officials emphasized that the operation was conducted under strict legal oversight, with a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer providing guidance to ensure compliance with federal law and established rules of engagement.​

​

​

...​

ABC News Vindicates Trump Admin With Crushing Blow to Left’s Smear Campaign

They're big mad.

resistthemainstream.com

There you go.....

 

[DonGlock26]

And another one bites the dust.


Aren't you leftoids tired of jumping on the fake news bandwagon?

​

​

ABC News has confirmed that the Sept. 2 strike against a cartel-linked cocaine vessel in the Caribbean Sea was legally justified and targeted active threats, countering earlier claims that the operation constituted a "double-tap" attack or war crime.​

​

​

The operation, intended to prevent a major shipment of cocaine from reaching the United States, resulted in the deaths of 11 designated narco-terrorists.​

​

​

Initial reports suggested two men survived the strike, but ABC cited sources familiar with the operation indicating the men reboarded the vessel, attempted to recover narcotics and maintained communication with other smuggling assets, confirming their status as active combatants.​

​

​

The strike was part of a coordinated U.S. military effort to disrupt narcotics trafficking near American waters.​

​

​

Officials emphasized that the operation was conducted under strict legal oversight, with a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer providing guidance to ensure compliance with federal law and established rules of engagement.​

​

​

...​

ABC News Vindicates Trump Admin With Crushing Blow to Left’s Smear Campaign

They're big mad.

resistthemainstream.com

Smoke 'em, if you got 'em.

 

[dblack]

The mainstream media has always supported the neo-cons.

 

[struth]

Well, somebitch. ABC News confirmed. Case closed.

We came, we saw, they died

 

[excalibur]

The mainstream media has always supported the neo-cons.

And the WaPo has long been the mouthpiece for the intelligence community, who put out this phony story because they hate Trump and they hate Hegseth.

Obviously, these actions against Venezuela drug-runners are costing certain people in the deep state a lot of money.

 

[struth]

This clearly is not ABC News confirming that the strike was lawful? Is this what OP was talking about?

Also, this whole transcript is kind of funny. The two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike...like wtf are they supposed to do otherwise? They are in the ocean.....They were salvaging some of the drugs? What does that mean exactly? Were they pulling bags of drugs from the ocean back into the boat? and this was after all their comrades were blown to peices? 8 other comrades dead, and they were still focused on getting the remains of the drugs and continuing onwards to America? And They were 'still in the fight'? Be honest, do you really think after suffering a drone strike that killed all their associates and damaged their boat that they were thinking about anything other than their survival? Do you think they were the ones benefiting of the selling of those drugs to such a large amount? Don't forget, these were boats that could have been intercepted rather than drone striked.

This doesn't even consider the fact that these strikes are likely illegal in the first place.

Killing of survivors sparks outrage – but entire US ‘drug boat’ war is legally shaky

Pentagon’s Law of War manual clearly prohibits attack, but justification for whole campaign also faces tough questions

www.theguardian.com

Well they should of just got back in the boat instead of tried to gather their drugs and communicate with their terrorist cartel…

You know continue their mission in a direct threat to the United States

Did you not read the story from ABC??

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Well they should of just got back in the boat instead of tried to gather their drugs and communicate with their terrorist cartel…

You know continue their mission in a direct threat to the United States

Did you not read the story from ABC??

?? I did read it, did you not?

ABC were reporting on what a source said, and then on the following line the article says:
"The second strike on the boat has led to criticism from some members of Congress that it may have constituted a war crime. They said there were violations of international law that protect enemy combatants no longer in the fight -- and of the maritime law guiding the rescue of persons shipwrecked at sea."

And how do they know who they were communicating with and the reasons for? If they were shipwrecked, could they not have been calling for help? Because, you know, they were on a damaged boat, and 8 of their buddies were dead? When you say they were trying to salvage the drugs, that is what I'm asking, Is there any proof of that? It cerntainly doesn't make sense, logically? Do you think it makes sense that after they suffered a drone strike which killed 80 percent of them, and damaged their boat, that they were worried about salvaging the drugs and continuing onwards to America?

And we are learning more about these strike. And the fact the administration is trying to distance themselves from it, does not make a good look for your case:

Survivors of Sept. 2 boat strike were waving before second attack, sources say

Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources.

www.cbsnews.com

"Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources familiar with a video that was shown to lawmakers this week."

Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters after the briefing that "what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service."
"You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States," Himes said.

 

[Concerned American]

?? I did read it, did you not?

ABC were reporting on what a source said, and then on the following line the article says:
"The second strike on the boat has led to criticism from some members of Congress that it may have constituted a war crime. They said there were violations of international law that protect enemy combatants no longer in the fight -- and of the maritime law guiding the rescue of persons shipwrecked at sea."

And how do they know who they were communicating with and the reasons for? If they were shipwrecked, could they not have been calling for help? Because, you know, they were on a damaged boat, and 8 of their buddies were dead? When you say they were trying to salvage the drugs, that is what I'm asking, Is there any proof of that? It cerntainly doesn't make sense, logically? Do you think it makes sense that after they suffered a drone strike which killed 80 percent of them, and damaged their boat, that they were worried about salvaging the drugs and continuing onwards to America?

And we are learning more about these strike. And the fact the administration is trying to distance themselves from it, does not make a good look for your case:

Survivors of Sept. 2 boat strike were waving before second attack, sources say

Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources.

www.cbsnews.com

"Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources familiar with a video that was shown to lawmakers this week."

Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters after the briefing that "what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service."
"You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States," Himes said.

IDGAF, I guess they FAFO. Where's your concern for the 106K US fentanyl deaths in 2024 alone? Take it down the road.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

IDGAF, I guess they FAFO. Where's your concern for the 106K US fentanyl deaths in 2024 alone? Take it down the road.

It's mostly about the legality surrounding these strikes, and what it can lead to. There is a lot of legal issues with these boat strikes, even disregarding this boat strike that was the double tap.

Your same argument could be used against people on US soil. Would you be happy enough if they were conducting air strikes against buildings/positions on US soil that were believed to be drug related?