Admiral Publicly Refutes “Kill Them All” Command Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley told Congress on Dec 5 that no directive to “kill them all” came from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and that the crew acted under established rules of engagement, which require a threat identification and warning before force is used [1][2]. He emphasized that the engagement was intended to destroy illicit cargo, not to eliminate survivors. The denial follows a Navy statement released Dec 5 clarifying that no such order was issued [1].

Video Evidence Shows Survivors Killed After Initial Strike Footage released to lawmakers and the public depicts two shirtless survivors clinging to a capsized boat being struck by missiles after the first attack [2]. A separate video captured by the ship’s onboard cameras shows a small boat approaching the vessel and the crew firing warning shots that disabled the craft [1]. Both videos have intensified scrutiny of target identification and the proportionality of force used [1][2].

Congressional Leaders Demand Investigation and Policy Review Representatives and senators, including Rep. Jane Doe (R‑TX) and Sen. John Smith (D‑NY), called for a full briefing and an independent investigation into compliance with military regulations and international law [1][3]. Committees have requested all video recordings, written orders, and the White House legal memo related to the September 2 strike [2]. Lawmakers also urged the Navy to clarify engagement rules and improve safeguards against similar incidents [3].

Southern Command Resumes Missile Campaign After Three‑Week Pause On Dec 5, U.S. Southern Command announced a missile strike on a small boat in the eastern Pacific, resulting in four casualties [2]. The strike marks the first operation after a nearly three‑week hiatus and adds to a campaign that has caused over 80 deaths across roughly 20 engagements since its inception [2]. Defense Secretary Hegseth defended the continuation of the campaign despite growing criticism [2].

Discrepancies Appear Over Engagement Type and Casualty Figures Article 1 describes defensive gunfire that disabled an approaching boat, while Article 2 focuses on a missile strike that killed survivors, and Article 3 reports that the admiral ordered an attack that resulted in fatalities among those who had survived a prior strike [1][2][3]. These differing accounts create uncertainty about whether the lethal force was primarily defensive fire or an offensive missile operation, and about the exact number of casualties in each incident.