This is CNN’s version of the story, by Natasha Bertrand: “US military carried out second strike killing survivors on a suspected drug boat that had already been attacked, sources say.”
The US military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on September 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.
While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.
***
People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.
Which, of course, is the whole point of the story from CNN’s perspective. It’s illegal! There has been a lot of byplay on Twitter, for example:
We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday.
These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth.
Fake News is the enemy of the people. https://t.co/CgpNBfb2gf— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) November 29, 2025
Here are my thoughts on the controversy:
1) The story is based on anonymous “sources,” i.e., deep state leakers. Unless and until someone steps forward, identifies himself, tells us what he knows and how he knows it, and takes responsibility for his statements, I assume everything in the story is probably a lie.
2) Given the lack of regard for the “law of armed conflict” that is consistently shown by our enemies, my reaction is: boo hoo.
3) Is there really a “law of armed conflict” that says you can only shoot at a target once? And if someone escapes an initial bombing, or burst of fire, or whatever, he is home free and can’t again be targeted? I’d like to see that law. I haven’t seen any news source cite to it.
4) If such a rule exists and applies in the present context, it is stupid. If it applies, and one were determined to follow it, it would incentivize a massive first strike that would eliminate any chance of survivors. And would also increase the risk of collateral, unintended damage.
Meanwhile, it appears that the Trump administration may be intent on bringing about regime change in Venezuela. If armed conflict develops, the fate of the narco-traffickers will soon be forgotten.
