Newly surfaced documents, human-rights petitions and internal Pentagon updates have revealed that US officials knew survivors were in the water after a lethal 2 September strike on a suspected drug-smuggling vessel, yet a follow-on attack was ordered anyway.
The disclosures raise sharp legal and political questions over Operation Southern Spear, the intensifying US maritime campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
With an international petition alleging an extrajudicial killing, and UN officials warning the strikes may breach human-rights law, pressure is mounting on the Pentagon to explain who authorised the follow-up strike and what commanders understood at the time.
Files Show Pentagon Knew Survivors Remained After First Strike
An investigation by the Associated Press reported that senior Pentagon officials were aware that at least two people survived the initial explosion on 2 September. Despite this, US forces conducted a second strike on the vessel. AP's reporting is based on two individuals familiar with the operation, both of whom spoke anonymously due to the sensitivity of classified material.
The War Department's own account, issued on 2 December as an update on 'Operation Southern Spear', reaffirms that US Special Operations Command called for a second strike to 'ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States was eliminated'. Pentagon officials insisted the campaign and individual strikes comply with US and international law.
These statements sit uneasily beside whistle-blower accounts and internal friction between senior defence officials over how aggressively Southern Spear should be executed.
Human-Rights Petition Alleges Extrajudicial Killing
This week, the family of Alejandro Carranza Medina, a Colombian fisherman killed in a separate 15 September strike, filed a formal petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The complaint, which media outlets and the family's lawyer, Daniel Kovalik, say they have reviewed, alleges Carranza was an unarmed civilian and accuses US officials of carrying out 'extra-judicial killings'.
The petition argues that Carranza's death left his wife and children without their primary source of income and requests reparations along with an independent international inquiry into US maritime strikes. It is the first formal human-rights legal action tied directly to Operation Southern Spear, signalling a significant escalation of cross-border accountability pressure.
The administration has publicly pledged to release more imagery of the operations; the US President said he would be open to releasing additional video. But lawmakers from both parties have demanded classified briefings, and a senior admiral connected to the operation is due to appear for closed congressional testimony.
UN and Legal Experts Question Lawfulness Of Strikes
The UN human-rights office has warned that the series of strikes conducted since September 'violate international human-rights law', as the operations are not taking place within a recognised armed conflict. The IACHR has also urged Washington to ensure its extraterritorial operations comply with international standards.
Human-rights bodies and legal experts have been explicit: lethal force is tightly constrained under both the law of armed conflict and human-rights law, mainly when operations occur outside recognised battlefields.
US officials, by contrast, have framed the strikes as lawful actions against 'designated terror organisations' and emphasised legal vetting up and down the chain of command. The Pentagon statement quoted its press secretary as saying lawyers had reviewed the operations and that Adm. Frank 'Mitch' Bradley authorised a follow-on strike on 2 September, a version of events that conflicts with reporting suggesting Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth privately ordered more aggressive action.
Legal scholars say two issues are determinative: whether the boats constituted legitimate military targets and whether commanders took feasible precautions to avoid civilian loss of life once survivors were visible.
If survivors were known and unarmed, a deliberate strike on them may violate both the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and human-rights obligations. Experts quoted in recent analyses call the practice of 'double-tap' strikes, hitting the same target twice, particularly fraught when civilians may be present.
Congress Moves To Examine Authorisations And Chain Of Command
US lawmakers from both parties are demanding classified briefings, the underlying Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion used to justify the campaign, and access to operational logs. A senior admiral tied to Southern Spear is expected to give closed-door testimony in the coming days.
Investigators are seeking answers to several questions:
- Who authorised the follow-on strike on 2 September?
- What intelligence assessments were used to classify the boat as a threat?
- What did field commanders observe once survivors appeared?
- What legal advice was provided, and were rescue obligations considered?
With new material emerging from both official releases and international filings, scrutiny of the Pentagon's maritime campaign is intensifying — and accountability demands are rising on Capitol Hill and abroad.
