There have been plenty of claims and counterclaims about what exactly happened during the September 2 second strike on a drug boat. On MS NOW's Thursday edition of Ana Cabrera Reports, retired Major General Steven Lepper claimed that even if all the new evidence that says that the boat’s crew re-boarded the vessel and radioed for help is true, it doesn’t matter because they are still considered shipwrecked. To make his analogy, Lepper utilized bad analogies and played the role of an Air Force man wandering outside of his area of expertise to talk about naval matters.
Cabrera introduced Lepper as the former “deputy legal counsel to the joint chiefs chair” and not a signee of “National Security Leaders for Biden.” Nevertheless, she did manage to ask him about how “The New York Times is also reporting this morning one of those survivors reportedly radioed for help. General, do these new details change the legal calculus? Was a second strike justified?”
Lepper claimed it did not, saying, “Having a radio doesn't in and of itself deprive shipwreck persons of their protection from attack. Even if the radio could summon friendly forces, which I understand has been alleged here, they're still shipwrecked unless they engage in a hostile act.”
He then reached for a poor analogy, “We need to be really careful about arguments like this, because they have the potential implications for U.S. forces. For example, downed U.S. airmen are equipped with survival kits that include life rafts and radios. Those radios are expressly intended to call for rescue by friendly forces. International law also considers downed airmen shipwrecked and deserving of protection and rescue. Under those circumstances, would we agree that having radios makes them lawful targets? I don't think so.”
Downed airmen, by definition, no longer have their plane, while it has been reported that these guys still had their vessel. But as for that vessel, later in the segment, Cabrera played a clip from House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes where he declared the video showed an attack on shipwrecked sailors but also, “The last thing I'm going to say. The last thing I'm going to say is that the admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order, and that there was not an order to grant no quarter.”
Cabrera then wondered, “General, what stands out there?”
Lepper echoed Himes, “Well, what stands out there is that there are apparently a lot more facts here than either The Washington Post or any other media outlet has reported up to now. And you know, again, what the secretary described at the cabinet meeting about a boat being on fire and what has subsequently been reported as two survivors climbing back into the boat, all still lead me to the conclusion that these were survivors who were likely wounded, who may have been in a boat that continued to be able to float but could not take them to shore.
As noted above, Lepper claimed the radio was not sufficient to hit the boat again. However, is it really so hard to believe that some other drug traffickers could have come along and either repaired the vessel or taken on the drugs themselves?
Lepper wasn’t interested in that. Instead he doubled down, “Under all these circumstances, when you add all these facts up, the conclusion under the law is that they were shipwrecked, and unless there was some kind of hostile act or the capability of engaging in a hostile act that would render the protections that the law affords them moot, then our obligation when we hit them with the first strike was to rescue them, not continue to target them.”
If the boat, which was carrying drugs, was still afloat, it was a perfectly legitimate target. Naval commanders target vessels. If the survivors of the first strike decided to climb back onboard what they knew by that point was a military target, that is a choice that is going to have consequences.
Here is a transcript for the December 4 show:
MS NOW Ana Cabrera Reports
12/4/2025
10:35 AM ET
ANA CABRERA: And The New York Times is also reporting this morning one of those survivors reportedly radioed for help. General, do these new details change the legal calculus? Was a second strike justified?
STEVEN LEPPER: Well, facts matter, and that's why we're pleased that the Congress is going to investigate this. But assuming that this is a lawful armed conflict in the first place, which is something that most legal experts dispute, having a radio doesn't in and of itself deprive shipwreck persons of their protection from attack. Even if the radio could summon friendly forces, which I understand has been alleged here, they're still shipwrecked unless they engage in a hostile act.
We need to be really careful about arguments like this, because they have the potential implications for U.S. forces. For example, downed U.S. airmen are equipped with survival kits that include life rafts and radios. Those radios are expressly intended to call for rescue by friendly forces. International law also considers downed airmen shipwrecked and deserving of protection and rescue. Under those circumstances, would we agree that having radios makes them lawful targets? I don't think so.
…
JIM HIMES: The last thing I'm going to say. The last thing I'm going to say is that the admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill them all order, and that there was not an order to grant no quarter.
CABRERA: General, what stands out there?
LEPPER: Well, what stands out there is that there are apparently a lot more facts here than either The Washington Post or any other media outlet has reported up to now. And you know, again, what the secretary described at the cabinet meeting about a boat being on fire and what has subsequently been reported as two survivors climbing back into the boat, all still lead me to the conclusion that these were survivors who were likely wounded, who may have been in a boat that continued to be able to float but could not take them to shore.
Under all these circumstances, when you add all these facts up, the conclusion under the law is that they were shipwrecked, and unless there was some kind of hostile act or the capability of engaging in a hostile act that would render the protections that the law affords them moot, then our obligation when we hit them with the first strike was to rescue them, not continue to target them.
