Military lawyer’s role in Caribbean strike comes under scrutiny

The staff judge advocate at Joint Special Operations Command, Col. Cara Hamaguchi, advised that a second strike against shipwrecked survivors would be lawful before Adm. Frank Bradley ordered the Sept. 2 attack that killed two men in Caribbean waters, according to a new investigation by The Intercept.

Catch up: Earlier this month, War Secretary Pete Hegseth cited the “fog of war” at a Cabinet meeting when asked about the September strike, which has triggered bipartisan congressional investigations into potential war crimes. That attack launched a broader campaign across Caribbean and Pacific waters that has now killed at least 105 people. In a closed-door testimony, Bradley denied that Hegseth gave a “kill them all” directive, contradicting prior news accounts, though lawmakers from both parties still expressed alarm at the classified briefing.

Latest claims: In his classified session, Bradley claimed that Hamaguchi “deemed a follow-up strike lawful” and reported that “no one in the room voiced objections before the survivors were killed,” a lawmaker anonymously told The Intercept. The strikes unfolded over approximately 45 minutes. After the initial attack capsized the vessel, the two men clung to debris while Bradley consulted Hamaguchi at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, then authorized additional missiles.

Five people briefed on the operation said the men’s arm movements toward the overhead U.S. aircraft appeared to be “signaling for help, rescue or surrender,” The Intercept noted. Four former military lawyers criticized the argument that these gestures did not constitute surrender. International law prohibits attacking shipwrecked individuals, who are classified as hors de combat or out of the fight. Eugene Fidell, a former Coast Guard judge advocate now at Yale Law School, told the outlet, “Waving is a way to attract attention. There was no need to kill them. We don’t kill people who are doing this. We should have saved them.”

Why this matters: Hamaguchi’s reported role carries significance beyond standard military accountability debates for Asian Americans. Many families remember how legal frameworks enabled Vietnam-era excesses, including free-fire zones, body count obsessions and civilian casualties dismissed as operational necessities. The parallel to Vietnam feels especially sharp given that “fog of war” rhetoric, the same justification Hegseth invoked, historically provided cover for decisions that devastated Southeast Asian populations and created wounds still carried across generations.