Legal and Ethical Concerns - The legality of the US military's actions in the Caribbean, specifically the second strike on survivors, is questioned, with some legal experts labeling it as "just murder" [1] - Discrepancies exist between Admiral Bradley's account to lawmakers and public statements, particularly regarding the presence of another vessel and the intent of the survivors [1][5] - Internal dissent within the operations room suggests uncertainty and debate regarding the legality of targeting the survivors after the initial strike [1] Incident Details and Contradictions - The initial strike on a small boat in the Caribbean resulted in nine fatalities, followed by a second strike targeting the two survivors clinging to wreckage approximately the size of a dining room table [1][3] - Conflicting reports exist regarding the boat's destination, with initial suspicions of heading to the US later contradicted by evidence suggesting Surinam as the intended destination [1] - Admiral Bradley's justification for the second strike, claiming it targeted the wreckage and potential drugs rather than the survivors, is met with skepticism [1][2] Policy and Operational Changes - The Defense Department seemingly altered its policy regarding survivors after the September 2nd incident, as evidenced by the rescue of survivors in subsequent operations on October 16th and October 27th [7][8][9] - The contrast between the decision to kill survivors in the September 2nd strike and the choice to rescue survivors in later incidents raises questions about a potential shift in Pentagon policy [8]