Colby Ekowicz (2:48)

So what is our understanding, and we've covered this on the show before, but what is our understanding? The US Surveils this boat in the Caribbean and then what happens?

Jonathan Goldstein (2:59)

So this mission was overseen by some of the most capable and secretive units in the US military. The unit that's commonly known as SEAL Team 6. So what we've learned from officials and from, you know, lawmakers on the Hill is there is some intelligence apparatus that tracks these boats either from point of origin, they have the capability to see if there's narcotics on board. And once the commanders have a good sense that these are not fishermen or just normal civilians doing normal civilian stuff, that's when they produce the authorization and the mission to strike them.

Colby Ekowicz (3:39)

And before they fire in this boat, this is when you've learned that the Defense Secretary gave a spoken directive, and this is according to people that were actually in the room, and he says, kill them all. Kill them all. So they go into this strike with that directive. What happens to that boat when it gets hit?

Jonathan Goldstein (4:06)

So US Forces launch a missile at that boat, and when it blew up, it caused a pretty significant fire. So there was a smoke column that obscured what was happening in the boat. And for several minutes, that's all analysts and commanders saw on the drone feed was this boat that was just on fire. The Penangatan would later say that 11 people were killed in the strike. But back in the ops room, commanders and analysts were watching this play out, and the smoke started to clear. It became apparent there were two survivors who were left clinging to whatever wreckage was left. The order that Joint Special Operations Commander Admiral Frank Bradley gave, based on his assessment, was to strike again. He said at the time that these men could still be in the fight. They could call other traffickers to come pick up them and pick up the drugs, and because of that, that they're still legitimate targets. So when he ordered up that second strike to kill them, he was fulfilling that original intent from Hegseth to kill everyone on that boat. And when that second missile strikes, those two men were blown apart in the water.

Colby Ekowicz (5:14)

Alex, I think it's important to note here that you served in the military and bring a lot of personal expertise to your reporting. So how unusual is it, then, that you would kill, carry out a strike, see that they're survivors, and then strike again to ensure that those people are killed?

Jonathan Goldstein (5:31)

This is a slippery slope of maritime law versus other kinds of law, of warfare. You know, how it was described to us was, you know, Bradley's warning was, in so many words, they're still in the fight. That is a term of art to describe a combatant who can still do something. A classic example in Afghanistan, for instance, is you shoot a Taliban militant or he gets hit in an airstrike, can he still push a button on his radio to give commands or to tell Someone to come get him or tell someone to break a suicide vest. That's sort of the bar of like, can we hit this person again? It's a pretty low bar when it's on land, because they can do all kinds of stuff. They could crawl to safety. They can get to a gun. They could patch themselves up. So the idea that you can hit survivors of a strike is permissible in a lot of situations. When you're talking about someone walking around on land, a lot of this changes in the water. There is specific law of warfare guidelines when it comes to being shipwrecked, because you can't go hide in a corner when you're in the middle of the ocean. There's nothing you can really do Once you're shipwrecked, and the term is shipwrecked, you're in a boat, the boat is no longer seaworthy. You can't do anything. You're just fighting to survive. So there is this line between what you can do when you hit someone in the water versus what you can do in land. And, of course, this was in water. It's a different calculus, and it's a different standard of what's permissible in this kind of scenario. So the commander would have to be thinking, is the boat seaworthy? Do they have the ability to be picked up from elsewhere? And from our reporting, you know, we haven't said how far into the ocean it was, but the distance does not really provide a lot of evidence that there's someone close by or they can swim or even give their position to someone, like, call on the radio if they have one, or their phone if they have one, after a missile blew up the boat, to call them and say, hey, I'm gonna drop you a pin and come get me. But when Bradley ordered the second strike, he could have been thinking about, if my boss, Pete Hegseth, said, to kill everyone, is there a tiny chance these guys could live to fight another day? Or the drugs, which are the ultimate mission, can the drugs get picked up and eventually make their way to the United States? And following that logic, what should I do in this situation so we can't get into his head? We've asked to speak to Secretary Hegseth himself about this, pending approval from the Pentagon press team. So, you know, there is a lot of, like, these subtleties of whether it's okay or not to hit them. It's based on a lot of factors.

Colby Ekowicz (8:24)

Alex, this connection you're making to Afghanistan. What seems different is that we were at war with Afghanistan. That was a declared war. The people there knew we were at war, but this is not that. So how does the fact that we're not necessarily at war with anyone in Latin America factor into our understanding of what's going on here?

Jonathan Goldstein (8:46)

Yes, I mean, a lot of what I just laid out is very. It's like an almost an academic exercise when you consider, are these people combatants or not? Because the law of war doesn't apply to people who are just people. Right. Like, just because they're traffickers or alleged traffickers or criminals doesn't mean that they are combatants. That, you know, the administration has called them, that they said they're members of drug trafficking organizations, narco terrorists. A lot of that is to unlock military authorities in the first place to strike people in this manner. But the fact of the matter is all the law of war subtleties that I laid out when it comes to combat on land specifically, are Islamic State, Taliban militants, Al Qaeda groups like this that have an organization, they have arms, they have the ability and the interest to attack Americans and are doing so in these theaters and in the homeland. This is a different ball of wax entirely because these traffickers are most interested in delivering product that people will buy in the United States. All the experts we've talked to within DEA and other people who've worked in the region have said, even if these drugs originate from these groups that the president and Hegseth are talking about, by the time you are in the business end of putting these drugs on a boat, these guys are. They're fishermen who are down on their luck for the most part. These cartels find people, don't tell them where the drugs are from, and then they go on their way. These are not cartel kingpins that are running the drugs. You know, these are people who have no clue where these drugs are at, and their only mission is to get it to a point they were told to go to.

Colby Ekowicz (10:25)

So this September attack, this becomes the first of many attacks by the US Military on what Trump has called, the administration has called narco terrorists. And now the Pentagon has hit at least 22 more boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, and they've killed dozens of these people of what, you know, these alleged drug smugglers. This new information about Hegseth's kill order, why did that strike you as an important development?

Jonathan Goldstein (10:57)

I think. Well, first of all, this operation has been shrouded in so much secrecy. And I think last time we talked about this, you know, I made the point that we knew so much about the operation to strike nuclear facilities in Iran for a secret operation to bomb facilities of another sovereign country. We had more details about how that operation went, who was involved, what aircraft were shooting, what munitions. And it's only until this story that was published just a few days ago that we revealed some of the key details of what's been happening for months. That it was and still remains a special operations mission. They are assessed, the intel is collected, and they are carried out by special operations troops. And not only that, by this strike and several that followed by the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, Otherwise known as Seal Team 6, which is the group that killed Osama bin Laden, that rescued Captain Phillips. They are these kinds of guys going on these kinds of missions. And these targets are not those. These boats are not exquisite military targets, targeting missions where they have to worry about defenses and air defense capabilities. So it's like you're ordering up the most exquisite solution to the most inexquisite target. This was such a black box to untangle. This particular unit was carrying out these strikes. That's a big reason why it's been so secret. And this whole region is under a command of a four star general. They were not a part of any of this stuff. This was all delegated and controlled by the special operations community.

Colby Ekowicz (12:56)

So when you use like Seal Team 6, does that allow you to keep it a secret? That's the idea. You're using these forces because these are the secretive forces and you don't have to reveal all the details.

Jonathan Goldstein (13:11)

Yes. And you've landed on an important point of like Congress in particular has been nonplussed about how much detail they're getting from the Pentagon. Even in classified briefings, they're walking out of there saying we don't know anything about this stuff. So the President and the Pentagon will reach for these kinds of tools. Seal Team 6, because they're the most capable and they have a lot of resources at their disposal. So that's one reason. The second reason is by using them, you are creating a de facto shroud that shields disclosure and information not just from like the public and the media, but from the Hill. That is one advantage to using these because they're deniable, they're secret, and only certain people have enough insight into what they're doing.

Colby Ekowicz (13:57)

I mean, why so important to keep it a secret?

Jonathan Goldstein (14:02)

That's, that's, I mean, that's what we're, we're trying to understand better. I mean, the Justice Department, their Office of Legal Counsel, you know, came out with a memo and an opinion over the summer before the Strikes happened that said, this is an operation against narco terrorists. We believe we are in non international armed conflict with these groups. And they also added another sort of wrinkle to that, that, you know, troops wouldn't be held liable for, you know, violations. It was constructed in such a way that they, they might have thought about sort of like the irregularities of this mission because this goes back to the combatant versus non combatant. Like if you're, they, they had to create that designation of terrorists and narco terrorists and drug trafficking organizations to unlock the military capabilities to go after someone. Because you, you know, as the listeners might be aware, you can't just go shooting up people wherever you want.

Colby Ekowicz (14:59)

Right.

Jonathan Goldstein (15:00)

And in whatever manner you want to use the US Military against a target, they have to be a target that threatens the interests of the United States. And depending on who you, if you ask the Trump administration, these groups are funding drugs that come into America that kill Americans. And the way Trump has described it is like, this is a deliberate effort to kill people and therefore these guys are a threat that requires military action. But the legal discussion and all the legal scholars looking at this are saying all of this is besides the point. These guys are alleged criminals. They're doing a bad thing. The way to take care of them is the way you've always done it, interdict, arrest them, seize the drugs, destroy the drugs, and then prosecute them in whatever court, whether that's in the US or another country. To strike them amounts to an extrajudicial killing. Is the broad conclusion of all these scholars that all this stuff about, is this a war crime? That's besides the point of what these scholars have concluded, that these guys are not lawful targets at all. This amounts to murder on the high seas is what they've concluded.

Colby Ekowicz (16:10)

That's what I was going to ask you. That sounds like what you're describing is murder.

Jonathan Goldstein (16:13)

That's right. The body of scholarly work forbids this kind of thing, especially using the military to do it. So that is, you know, we are hard pressed to find someone who's not in the administration and say these are lawful, lawful military targets. Are they lawful law enforcement targets? For sure, and they have been for decades. But can you send a missile into a drug trafficking boat and kill the occupants is another question entirely.

Colby Ekowicz (16:47)

After the break, how the Pentagon and Capitol Hill have responded to this Exclusive reporting from the Post. We'll be right back.

Heavyweight Season Promoter (17:03)

Here's a situation I think we've all been in before. You're in bed, about to go to sleep, doing some last minute scrolling through your favorite shopping sites looking for those great deals. Then boom. The sweater or pants or kitchen appliance or whatever is finally back in stock. You hit that add to cart button as fast as you can. But when it's time to check out, you realize your cart is downstairs and the last thing you want to do is get out of that warm and cozy bed. As soon as you're about to sadly abandon the cart, though, you see it the purple shop button. That shop button has all your payment and shipping info saved so you can stay in that warm bed and still get that great deal you've been waiting for for months. That's Shopify. And there's a reason so many businesses sell with it. Because Shopify makes everything easier from checkout to creating your own storefront. Shopify gives you that leg up from day one with hundreds of beautiful, ready to go templates to express your brand style and forget about the code. Tackle all those important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics and more. Spread your brand's word with built in marketing and email tools to find and keep new customers. If you want to see less carts being abandoned, it's time for you to head over to Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com reports go to shopify.com reports shopify.com reports to first responders Every second counts Firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement officers and 911 operators need to communicate instantly, and that's why FirstNet exists. FirstNet is the only network built with and for first responders. It's a unique public private partnership with the FirstNet authority making sure America's first responders always have priority access, whether in the heart of a big city, a rural county or a remote territory. During natural disasters, major storms or large scale events, first responders know they can count on FirstNet to keep them connected, even when other networks are congested or unavailable. FirstNet is more than a network. It's a commitment to first responders. A promise that America's public safety always comes first. FirstNet built with AT&T. Learn more@firstnet.com Public Safety First.

Colby Ekowicz (19:21)

So Alex, what has the Pentagon said about your reporting before he published the story?

Jonathan Goldstein (19:27)

We approached the Pentagon with the facts of our reporting. They gave us a statement saying our reporting was untrue, but didn't push back on any particular points. Later on, Secretary Hegseth addressed it himself on social media and through a statement, but he again did not go through any particular points. Crucially he did not push back against the notion that there was a second strike and whether, you know, he had authorized it or not. So those, those elements of our story have not been challenged, particularly what about President Trump?

Colby Ekowicz (20:01)

Has he said anything about your reporting?

Jonathan Goldstein (20:03)

Trump initially pushed back on her reporting, saying he had doubts that the second strike happened. But later on, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt confirmed many aspects of her reporting, including that Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these strikes. She said Bradley worked well within the authority of the law with respect to.

Colby Ekowicz (20:20)

The strikes in question. On September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority.

Heavyweight Season Promoter (20:30)

And the law directing the engagement to.

Colby Ekowicz (20:32)

Ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.

Jonathan Goldstein (20:37)

Since Leavitt gave those remarks, we heard from some officials who were concerned that her remarks didn't make it clear whether Exeth was going to take responsibility for the strikes or if he was going to put some of that burden on his military leadership. Most prominently would be Emeril Bradley.

Colby Ekowicz (20:55)

You mentioned that lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been frustrated by the lack of information that they've been able to receive about these strikes. From your reporting over the holiday weekend. What has been the response from Congress? Have there been lawmakers kind of weighing in about this?

Jonathan Goldstein (21:15)

Republicans in Congress have gone along with Trump in a number of things. The Houthi mission in Yemen, you know, Rough Rider to strike those targets, Midnight Hammer in Iran to strike those nuclear facilities. They have been aboard with Trump this whole time on his use of the military and I think are generally in favor of what's having the buildup of military forces in the Caribbean. They seem to be generally on board, notwithstanding that this is an operation that is sidestepping Congress because there's no authorization of force specifically for this mission. So some members of Congress are mad about that. But generally Republicans have been on board with how he's been using the military. This second strike, though, is significant in the way it has animated some Republican frustrations on the Hill. For instance, Representative Mike Turner from Ohio, he's a Trump backer. He has significant concerns, he said, about that second strike and whether it was lawful. Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious. And I agree that that would be an illegal act. And the way he explained it was he didn't have those details beforehand. There are very serious concerns in Congress about the attacks on the so called drug boats down in the Caribbean and the Pacific and the legal justification that's been provided. But this is Completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress. And there is an ongoing investigation. Yeah. After our story published, the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, both led by Republicans, said they would investigate not just the broader Southern spear campaign against these traffickers, but that first in particular.

Colby Ekowicz (22:59)

So we've established that we have this, quote, unquote, war on narco terrorists, but we haven't declared war on Venezuela itself. And yet the Trump administration has done things even in the last few weeks to show that maybe we are inching closer to a war there. Right.

Jonathan Goldstein (23:16)

So the thing hanging over all of this is Venezuela and President Nicolas Maduro. Right. The buildup, certainly when we talk about the aircraft carriers and all the submarine that's in the Caribbean, what are they doing, the president and his top aides on this, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, they never had a love for Maduro and they've always wanted him out. This goes back to the first Trump administration. So there seems to be a connective tissue between these strikes, pinning some of it or all of it on Venezuela itself by saying they're sending drugs and violence to American shores. We have to do something about that. And Nicolas Maduro is at the center of it, is their claim. Therefore, these strikes of these boats are in parallel with another military buildup in the region that is aimed at the ultimate goal of Maduro leaving power and going on his way. Whether that's a military operation to do that from the United States, whether that's a CIA mission to back separatists and the government in waiting, we don't know. But the pieces certainly are there for something to happen. And we've seen a number of surveillance flights and B52 bombers going to the Venezuelan coast. We've seen a special operations mothership with helicopters flying within 100 miles of Venezuela. But, you know, the people I've spoken to about this is everything that's in the region now, are there for options, because there's a whole ladder of what you can do. You can do all that stuff with. With the stuff that's there now and the stuff that can get in there quick. So all that to say we don't know, but when something starts to happen, it'll happen quick is my read.

Colby Ekowicz (25:13)

Alex, thank you so much for coming on and sharing all this exclusive reporting with us.

Jonathan Goldstein (25:17)

Yeah, happy to be here, Colby. Thank you.

Colby Ekowicz (25:23)

Alex Horton is a national security security reporter for the Post. That's it for Post Reports. Thanks for listening. If you love the show, help other people discover it by leaving a rating on Spotify or a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. Today's show was produced by Renny Srinivy with help from Rena Flores and Sabi Robinson. It was mixed by Shawn Carter and edited by Ariel Plotnick. Thanks to editor Ben Pawker. I'm Colby Ekowicz. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

Jonathan Goldstein (26:08)

America is changing and so is the world.

Heavyweight Season Promoter (26:12)

But what's happening in America isn't just.

Jonathan Goldstein (26:15)

The cause of global upheaval.

Heavyweight Season Promoter (26:17)

It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.

Colby Ekowicz (26:20)

I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. i'm.

Jonathan Goldstein (26:23)

Tristan Redman in London. And this is the global story. Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Michael J. Fox. With your support, we can end Parkinson's once and for all. Get involved@michaeljfox.org the Michael J. Fox foundation here. Until Parkinson's isn't.