By Idrees Ali, Phil Stewart and Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. military commander is expected to tell lawmakers on Thursday that survivors of a strike on a boat in the Caribbean were legitimate targets for a second attack because their vessel was still believed to contain illegal narcotics, a U.S. official told Reuters.
On September 2, the U.S. military destroyed a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean, killing 11 suspected traffickers. Officials have said the operation included a follow-on strike against the vessel after an initial attack when there were still survivors, raising questions about the legality of the operation and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's role in it.
Hegseth has already come under fire this year after a Pentagon investigation faulted him for using Signal on his personal device to send sensitive information about planned strikes in Yemen.
Admiral Frank Bradley, who was the head of Joint Special Operations Command at the time, will tell lawmakers in a classified briefing on Thursday that the two survivors were legitimate military targets because they were perceived as capable of continuing drug trafficking, the official said.
Bradley, who now leads the U.S. Special Operations Command, arrived on Capitol Hill early on Thursday and was joined by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, ahead of the closed-door briefing.
The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.
So far, there have been 20 U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific against suspected drug vessels this year that have killed more than 80 people.
Killing suspected drug traffickers who pose no threat of causing imminent serious injury to others would be murder under U.S. and international law. However, the United States has framed the attacks as a war with drug cartels, calling them armed groups.
The Defense Department's Law of War Manual forbids attacks on combatants who are incapacitated, unconscious or shipwrecked, provided they abstain from hostilities or are not attempting to escape. The manual cites firing upon shipwreck survivors as an example of a "clearly illegal" order that should be refused.
HEGSETH UNDER SCRUTINY
Hegseth said on Tuesday he had watched the first U.S. strike in September on the suspected drug-smuggling vessel in real time, but did not see survivors in the water or the second lethal strike that he described as being carried out in the "fog of war." But he defended Bradley's decision to carry out a follow-up strike.
"Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat," Hegseth said.
Trump, who told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday that he would not have wanted the second strike, largely voiced support for Hegseth and the operation on Tuesday, while also saying he hadn't been aware of the second strike.
The lethal strikes on drug vessels, including the early September one, are part of a broader campaign that the Trump administration says is aimed at cutting off the supply of illegal drugs into the U.S. The administration has said drug cartels pose an immediate threat to the United States and justified its strikes by equating suspected drug traffickers with terrorists, though many legal experts dispute the validity of such a characterization.
Hegseth remains in focus for both the military campaign as well as his use of Signal.
Sources have told Reuters that a Pentagon Inspector General report, which will be released on Thursday, said Hegseth's use of Signal could have endangered U.S. troops if intercepted.
Prominent Democrats, including the top Democratic lawmaker on the House Armed Services Committee, said the Signal investigation showed Hegseth lacked the judgment required of the leader of the U.S. armed forces.
(Reporting by Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; Editing by Michael Perry and Deepa Babington)
