The Daily Did a U.S. Boat Strike Amount to a War Crime?
540 snips
Dec 3, 2025 
Charlie Savage, a national security and legal policy reporter for The New York Times, dives deep into the U.S. military's controversial strikes on South American boats. He unpacks the legal ramifications of a Sept. 2 attack that may have violated international laws by killing survivors. Savage discusses the discrepancies in the administration's rationale for the actions, whether they constitute armed conflict, and the potential implications for those involved. Amid calls for accountability, he highlights the vital questions about legality and oversight surrounding these military operations.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Administration Frames Drug Flights As Warfare
- The administration treats the campaign as an "armed conflict" against drug cartels rather than ordinary law enforcement.
- That framing lets it classify boat crews as combatants and justify lethal strikes under the law of armed conflict.
Post Story About Second Strike Sparked Furor
- The Washington Post reported Admiral Bradley ordered a second strike that killed survivors after Secretary Hegseth allegedly said "kill everyone."
- That revelation provoked bipartisan outrage that had not emerged in September.
Protections For Those Out Of The Fight
- Laws of armed conflict bar attacking people who are out of the fight, surrendered, wounded, or shipwrecked.
- If survivors from the first strike were deliberately targeted, that could constitute a war crime.