Duckworth Calls Caribbean 'Double‑Tap' Strike 'Essentially Murder,' Says It Violates International Law

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a combat veteran and former Black Hawk helicopter pilot, sharply condemned a U.S. military operation in the Caribbean that killed 11 alleged drug traffickers in early September. She said the follow-up "double‑tap" strike that hit two initial survivors was "essentially murder" and argued the action violated international and domestic law.

Pushback On Comparisons To Afghanistan And Iraq

Speaking on CNN's State of the Union, Duckworth rejected Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's comparison of the Caribbean operation to combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, noting a key difference: Congress formally authorized the latter conflicts.

"Well, there was actually a vote by Congress to put us at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no such a vote, there was no such debate here in this situation," she said.

Duckworth praised U.S. service members as "the utmost professionals," but said that without congressional authorization, the legal and moral basis for the Caribbean action is different and more problematic.

Legal Argument And Combat Perspective

Drawing on her combat experience—she lost both legs and partial use of her right arm after a rocket‑propelled grenade struck the Black Hawk she co‑piloted in 2004—Duckworth invoked the laws of armed conflict. She argued those laws and the Geneva Conventions prohibit targeting people who no longer pose an immediate threat.

"Under the laws of war... you are supposed to help render aid to that individual," she said, describing how a downed person in a dinghy should be treated under international rules.

Duckworth also cited an admiral's briefing that said the two survivors had no radio access when the second strike occurred, and called the follow-up attack a potential war crime: "It was essentially murder with that double‑tap strike. It is a war crime. It's illegal. However you put it, it's all illegal."

Context And Implications

The senator's comments raise questions about the legal justification for the operation, the role of congressional authorization in U.S. military actions, and how international humanitarian law applies to counter‑trafficking and counter‑narcotics operations at sea. Duckworth's critique underscores tensions between operational decisions and legal constraints.