Does Boat Strike Survivors Waving Before Follow-Up Attack Change the Story?

Legality of Military Action vs Police Action - The central question revolves around whether the actions against drug boats are considered legal, hinging on the perspective of whether it's a war or law enforcement scenario [1][2][3] - A second strike is deemed legitimate if the situation is classified as war, but not if it's considered law enforcement [3] - The President possesses considerable authority as commander in chief to initiate war and designate groups as terrorists, potentially justifying the Pentagon's actions [8] - The challenge to the President's authority and the legality of the strikes would likely need to be resolved in the courts [7][8] Political and Public Perception - Reactions to the strikes are heavily politicized, with Democrats expressing concerns and labeling it as potentially a case of murder [4] - Members of Congress hold differing views on the footage of the strikes, largely influenced by their political affiliations [6] - Public trust in the administration's intelligence regarding the individuals on the boats being drug traffickers is questionable, reflecting a broader skepticism towards official pronouncements [10][11] - Questioning the intelligence pronouncements from the intelligence community and the White House has become more prevalent [11] Evidence and Transparency - The administration emphasized having intelligence confirming drug trafficking activities [9] - The President supported the public release of the video footage related to the strikes [12] - Republicans who initially questioned the strikes became more comfortable with the narrative after viewing the video [13][14]