Trump War crimes probe gets real: UNDER OATH testimony as Trump aide ducks

Legal and Ethical Concerns - The Trump administration faced legal setbacks, including a failure to reindict the New York Attorney General, indicating potential legal vulnerabilities [1][2] - Allegations of war crimes have emerged concerning a deadly boat strike, with experts suggesting potential violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice [4][5] - Conflicting narratives and demands for transparency surround the boat strike incident, particularly regarding the timeline and the order to "kill everybody" [3][7][10] - A Democratic congressman described video evidence of the second strike as depicting the US military attacking shipwrecked sailors, raising serious ethical questions [8][9] - The Pentagon faces demands to release the unedited video of the strikes, highlighting concerns about transparency and accountability in military operations [14] - The rules of engagement and the plan for dealing with survivors are under scrutiny, particularly regarding the legality of attacking survivors who may have been communicating with suspected cartel members [16][17] - Experts emphasize that executing survivors violates international law and human rights principles, potentially undermining the US's moral standing and the protection of its own soldiers [18][19] Transparency and Accountability - Admiral Bradley testified on Capitol Hill, providing information about the second strike, but discrepancies exist between his account and that of Secretary Hegsth regarding the timeline [6][8][10][11][12] - Secretary Hegsth's reluctance to provide a clear timeline for the strikes suggests potential evasiveness or legal concerns [13] - A watchdog report on Secretary Hegsth's intelligence errors in Signalgate revealed policy violations that potentially endangered service members [21][22]