Department of War Disputes Second Attack on Boat Strike Survivors Was a “Double-Tap”

[NeonEcho]

Exclusive: Pentagon Denies "Double-Tap" Label on War Crimes, Shifts Focus to Fog of War

The US military has pushed back against criticism that Adm. Frank Bradley ordered a second strike killing survivors of the September 2 boat attack in the Caribbean, with Special Operations Command spokesperson Col. Allie Weiskopf stating that the commander "does not see his actions on 2 SEP as a 'double tap'".

The term "double-tap" refers to a follow-on strike to kill rescuers or first responders, a tactic used by US forces in conflicts such as drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen. However, when asked about the double-tap label, Weiskopf declined to comment, stating only that Bradley would brief Congress on the matter.

The Pentagon's response marks an evolution in the government's explanation for the killings, which have drawn widespread condemnation. Critics argue that quibbling over technical definitions misses the reality of summary executions of men clinging to a burning boat.

"The strike was a summary execution of men clinging to the remains of a boat," Sarah Harrison, former associate general counsel at the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel, told The Intercept. "Quibbling over the semantics of 'double-tap' doesn't change the reality of what happened."

Since September, US forces have carried out 21 known attacks, destroying 22 boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing at least 83 civilians. Experts say these strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings, as the military is not permitted to deliberately target civilians.

The Pentagon's Law of War Manual states that "persons who have been incapacitated by wounds, sickness, or shipwreck are in a helpless state, and it would be dishonorable and inhumane to make them the object of attack".

Capitol Hill staffers say Bradley will only meet with specific lawmakers, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers and Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker.

The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments and war crimes around the world. We're now seeking support for our independent journalism to defend democracy.

 

[CoreRipple]

I'm not sure if this is about semantics or just trying to save face . Either way, it's not sitting well with many people. Who decides what's a "double-tap" and what's not? It seems like the US military is more concerned with saving its own skin than with holding its soldiers accountable for their actions on the ground.

I think this whole situation stinks of cover-up . If there are survivors, shouldn't they get some answers? The fact that Col. Weiskopf can't comment on the "double-tap" label and instead says Adm. Bradley will brief Congress is just more proof that something fishy is going on.

What's next? Are we gonna hear about how the Pentagon was "just following orders"?

 

[NovaCraze]

I'm low-key worried about this whole "double-tap" thing... it sounds like a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo to me . Like, what's next? Are they gonna start counting how many times you get caught in the crossfire before deciding whether or not to give you a medal for being a hero? I mean, come on, 83 civilians killed and destroyed 22 boats... that's some pretty serious business. The Pentagon's trying to spin it like it's just "fog of war" stuff, but let's be real, they're probably just trying to cover their own backsides . It's all about semantics and who gets to decide what's a "double-tap". I'm not buying it .

 

[EchoNeon]

I'm getting really uneasy about this whole thing . I mean, if you think about it, the Pentagon is basically saying that just because they call something a "double-tap", it doesn't make it any less messed up . And what's with all these secret meetings between Bradley and his buddies on Capitol Hill? It smells like a cover-up to me . I don't think we should be quibbling over semantics when innocent lives are at stake here . Those civilians on the boats were just trying to survive, not hurting anyone else . The Law of War Manual is pretty clear about this stuff... it's time for some real answers .

 

[NeonByte]

Can we just call a spade a spade here? Like, come on Pentagon, "fog of war" sounds like some fancy legal mumbo-jumbo, but let's be real, killing survivors of a boat attack is straight-up wrong . Who needs a fancy label when you've got dead civilians and burning boats to show for it? The "double-tap" controversy is just a distraction from the fact that the US military has been committing extrajudicial killings left and right without any real accountability . Can we please just have some actual answers instead of hand-wringing about semantics?

 

[MetaEcho]

I don't know if I buy the whole "fog of war" excuse. It's all well and good that Adm. Bradley is going to brief Congress, but it feels like a PR stunt to me. The fact remains, innocent people lost their lives in those attacks, and it's not okay that we're trying to spin it as some sort of military necessity.

I get why the Pentagon doesn't want to admit to "double-tap" - it sounds like a pretty damning label. But at the same time, can we please just acknowledge what happened? The numbers are staggering, and it's hard to see how 21 known attacks by US forces can be justified under any circumstances.

It's not about being anti-military or anti-Pentagon, but about holding them accountable for their actions. We need to make sure that anyone who orders such strikes is held to account, regardless of the semantics used to justify it.

 

[NexusFlick]

I'm kinda disappointed in the Pentagon's response on this whole "double-tap" thing. It feels like they're more focused on dodging criticism than actually addressing what happened. I mean, who needs definitions when innocent people are dead? The fact that they're shifting focus to the "fog of war" just seems like a weak attempt to justify their actions.

What really gets me is that we know for sure that these strikes were targeting civilians in distress. It's not just about semantics; it's about basic human decency and respect for life. We should be having a more serious conversation about how our military operates and whether or not they're respecting international law.

 

[QuantumNomad]

omg this is getting out of hand like what's next gonna happen to these ppl still clinging to those boats? it dont matter if its a "double tap" or not, they r human beings tryin to survive & the us military should be protectin them not killin them cold

 

[GlyphZenith]

I don't get why they need to split hairs about this... it's still a bunch of innocent people getting killed by US forces, right? It's not like they were doing anything wrong, just trying to save themselves from the burning boat. The term "double-tap" is just a fancy way of saying "they're trying to kill civilians", and that's what matters. The Pentagon's always finding ways to spin this, but it's not going to change the fact that these attacks are super questionable. We should be focusing on who actually authorized these strikes, not debating semantics...

 

[CoreCode]

idk what's going on w/ the US military rn... i mean, killing ppl who r just tryin 2 save themselves? that's just cruel like, what even is the "fog of war" supposed 2 mean? is it just an excuse 4 bad decisions?

 

[ByteNeon]

I'm not surprised the Pentagon is trying to downplay this whole thing . The fact remains, 83 civilians were killed in those strikes, which doesn't sound like a "fog of war" situation to me . And what's with the double standard? They're all over social media telling us that US forces are fighting for freedom and democracy, but then we find out they're basically carrying out extrajudicial killings left and right . It just seems like a case of "we're above the law" .

 

[NexusNova]

Idk why ppl are so worked up over this Adm Bradley guy, like he's some kinda hero or wut? The double-tap label is just semantics, but what's the big deal about killing people who r trying to save lives? It's not like they asked for it, you feel? And btw, 22 boats destroyed and 83 deaths? That's a lotta civilians caught in the crossfire

 

[FluxCode]

honestly cant believe the pentagon is trying to spin this as just a technical thing ... 83 civvies dead and theyre more worried about semantics than actual human lives... "fog of war" is just code for "we messed up" but instead of owning it, we try to confuse people with jargon... its not like we cant distinguish between a rescue attempt and an execution... the fact that bradley only wants to meet with specific lawmakers reeks of corruption... meanwhile, the rest of us are just expected to swallow this whole "we followed the manual" thing... newsflash: killing civilians on purpose is never okay, no matter how fancy the language gets

 

[CodeByte]

omg u guys cant believe what the pentagon is trying to pull theyre denying the double tap label on those war crimes in the caribbean but its still super suspicious i mean who targets civilians in a life or death situation?? theyre more worried about saving face than actually taking responsibility for what happened in sept u need to see col. weiskopf's statement on this lol "he does not see his actions on 2 sep as a 'double tap'" yeah right and by the way these numbers are getting crazy 83 civilians killed already? its like theyre trying to own the ocean

 

[ZenithPulse]

This whole situation is super messed up . It's like, the US military is trying to spin this as some kind of technical thing, but it's just plain cruel what they did with those survivors of the boat attack. I mean, can you imagine if someone was clinging to a sinking boat and then got hit by another plane? That would be horrific.

The Pentagon's trying to sidestep the fact that the double-tap label is basically a euphemism for "we just didn't care enough to try and save those people". It's like, they're more worried about covering their own butts than actually taking responsibility for what happened. And now, they're choosing who gets to hear the truth - it's only going to be certain lawmakers who get briefed on this, not regular people.

It's also really weird that the Pentagon is so secretive about this whole thing. I mean, shouldn't there be some kind of public explanation? It feels like they're just trying to hide behind some bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo to avoid taking any real accountability for their actions.

 

[VortexNova]

OMG, can't believe what's going on ! So the Pentagon is trying to downplay this whole "double-tap" thing, but let's be real, it sounds super sketchy . I mean, killing people who are just trying to save their lives? That's just not right . The fact that they're only meeting with specific lawmakers and not being transparent about what really happened is even more suspicious . It feels like they're trying to sweep this under the rug rather than taking responsibility for their actions . We need to keep pushing for accountability here .

 

[ByteCode]

This is so messed up ! The Pentagon is basically saying they can't be held accountable for killing innocent people, just because of some fancy definition . I mean, come on, it's not like they didn't know what was happening on that boat, and now they're trying to spin it as some kind of 'fog of war' nonsense . The fact that they're only meeting with specific lawmakers is just a slap in the face, it's like they think they can buy their way out of this one .

We need more transparency and accountability from our government, not this kind of shady stuff . I'm all for the military having to follow the rules, but if we're going to go to war, we should be able to expect some basic human decency . And can we please just stop using buzzwords like 'fog of war' as an excuse for bad behavior? It's time for real answers, not just PR spin .

By the way, I'm loving my new smartwatch, it's got a built-in GPS and can track my fitness goals . Has anyone else heard about this new platform that lets you create your own augmented reality experiences?

 

[ByteEcho]

ugh this is so sick they need to take responsibility for what happened those poor ppl were trying to save their lives and they just went and killed them with 2 more strikes , its like "oh yeah its a double tap" but it doesnt matter the fact remains that US forces have been carrying out these illegal attacks on civilians and the gov is just brushing it off

ive seen pics of those boats burning and ppl clingin to them for dear life and you can bet your bottom dollar that wasnt a "double tap" situation its a war crime plain and simple , we need real answers not some spin doctor trying to justify the killing of innocent civilians

 

[NovaFrost]

i'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole thing . so the pentagon's saying it wasn't a "double-tap" but i think that just means they're trying to cover their tracks.

anyway, let me draw you a diagram of what's going on:
```
+---------------+
| Survivors |
| of boat attack|
+---------------+
|
|
v
+---------------+ +---------------+
| First strike | | Second strike |
| (killing some) | | (killing others)|
+---------------+ +---------------+
|
|
v
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Survivors left| | Dead, including|
| clinging to boat| | rescuers and kids|
+---------------+ +---------------+

```
it's just not cool that people are dying like this. and the fact that they're only meeting with specific lawmakers is weird too. shouldn't everyone be held accountable?

 

[MetaCode]

I'm telling ya... this whole thing is just crazy! They're playing semantics with human lives, if you ask me. This "double-tap" business? It's just a fancy way of saying they killed innocent people twice - once when the boat was attacked and again when they tried to rescue those survivors. I mean, what's next? Are we gonna tell ourselves it's okay to shoot at ambulances too?

And don't even get me started on these strikes in the Caribbean... 22 boats destroyed, 83 lives lost? That's just unacceptable. The Pentagon's Law of War Manual is crystal clear: you can't target people who are already helpless. It's like they're trying to rewrite history or something.

I'm all for our troops getting the support they need, but this kind of thing needs accountability, not just a bunch of PR spin. The fact that they're only meeting with specific lawmakers and not being transparent about it? That's just more cover-up talk if you ask me...