![[post_title]](https://samony.com.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/1765136653_Admiral-tells-lawmakers-that-all-11-people-on-alleged-drug-1024x683.jpg)
Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley has informed lawmakers that all eleven individuals aboard an alleged drug vessel, struck in the Caribbean Sea on September 2, were on an approved list of military targets. This revelation came during a closed-door briefing on Thursday, where the admiral provided details regarding the controversial “double-tap” strike that has drawn significant scrutiny.
According to reports from NBC News, Admiral Bradley told a dozen lawmakers that those on the vessel were designated narco-terrorists. He stated that military and intelligence officials had determined these individuals could be targeted with lethal measures, confirming their identities and validating their status as legitimate targets through intelligence assessments.
Further testimony from Admiral Bradley indicated that U.S. intelligence did not determine the drugs on the vessel were directly bound for the United States. Instead, the ship was reportedly en route to Suriname in South America, planning to link up with a larger vessel. However, Bradley maintained that the possibility of the drugs ultimately reaching U.S. shores remained, justifying the interdiction and subsequent strikes.
The admiral’s account emerges amidst escalating questions surrounding the September attack, particularly following a report by The Washington Post. The Post alleged that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered Bradley to “kill everybody” on the vessel, and that a second strike was carried out after survivors were sighted following the initial engagement. The Pentagon has vehemently refuted The Post’s narrative, labeling it “completely false.”
Concerns have been voiced by some lawmakers and former military officials, who suggest that the strikes could potentially violate international law. Conversely, the White House has consistently affirmed the legality of the operations, stating that Secretary Hegseth had properly authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct the attacks within established legal frameworks.
Secretary Hegseth, addressing the issue publicly, stated that he “didn’t stick around” after the first strike and “did not personally see survivors.” He has consistently expressed strong support for Admiral Bradley, affirming his confidence in the admiral’s decisions and stating that he “would have made the same call” himself.
During the private briefing, Admiral Bradley reportedly elaborated on the orders he received from the Defense Secretary. He specified that Hegseth instructed him to neutralize the individuals on the approved military list, destroy the illicit cargo, and sink the vessel. Bradley explained that the subsequent strikes were ordered because the drugs had not been destroyed, the survivors had not surrendered, they were not visibly injured, and crucially, they remained on the approved target list.
The second strike, according to Bradley, resulted in the deaths of the two survivors, but failed to sink the boat. Consequently, he ordered two additional strikes to achieve the objective of fully incapacitating the vessel. Addressing a direct question about whether Hegseth issued a “no quarter order”—an illegal directive to kill enemies regardless of surrender or injury—Bradley unequivocally denied receiving such an order, asserting he would not have complied if he had.
This ongoing scrutiny underscores the complexities of maritime interdiction operations and the critical balance between national security objectives and adherence to international legal statutes. The congressional briefings and public statements continue to highlight the divergent accounts and interpretations surrounding the events of September 2, maintaining intense focus on the actions of senior military and defense officials.
