A war crime in my view: Retired general on new boat strike details

Incident Overview - US military's September strike on a suspected drug boat is under scrutiny, particularly the "double tap" restrike on survivors [1] - The incident raises concerns about potential violations of the laws of war and extrajudicial killings [1][9] - There are conflicting accounts regarding the target's destination, with initial reports suggesting the US and later reports indicating Surinam and Africa [2][8] Legal and Ethical Concerns - Questions arise whether the restrike constitutes a war crime, especially considering the survivors were unarmed and seemingly not posing an immediate threat [1][4][17] - The legality of the operation is questioned, particularly regarding the authorization for lethal counterterrorism operations and potential violations of rules of engagement [1][4] - Concerns are raised about the existence of a list of "narco-terrorists" used to justify lethal targeting, and whether such a list overrides established rules of conflict [3][4] Calls for Transparency and Accountability - There are calls for the release of the video footage of the strike to allow the public to assess the situation [1] - Congress is urged to hold public hearings with witnesses under oath to investigate the incident and ensure accountability [1][11] - The incident highlights the need for greater clarity regarding the rules of engagement and the role of legal advisors in military operations [10][11] Conflicting Narratives and Justifications - Secretary of Defense defends the strike, citing the authority of the commander and the prevalence of restrikes in combat situations [1][5][6] - Admiral Bradley's closed-door testimony contradicts public justifications for the strike [7] - Differing opinions exist among lawmakers regarding the interpretation of the video footage and the justification for the strike [1][9]