Alleged War Crime Investigation - The Defense Secretary Pete Hexus is under scrutiny regarding the legality of a boat strike on September 2nd that resulted in 11 alleged drug smugglers deaths, prompting calls for accountability from both Republicans and Democrats [1] - Legal experts are assessing whether war crimes were committed, particularly concerning the killing of two survivors who were waving for help [1] - Steve Kennedy argues that the boat strike could be considered murder because there is no congressional authorization for the use of military force, meaning the US is not officially at war [7] Rules of Engagement and Military Conduct - The military trains personnel that individuals who are out of the fight are off-limits, and violating this principle could lead to imprisonment [9] - Concerns are raised that Defense Secretary Pete Hexus's emphasis on lethality contradicts the qualities of a good military leader, who should prioritize clear instructions and awareness of consequences [10] - Good leaders ensure their troops understand and follow the law, especially in split-second decisions [11] Potential Legal Repercussions - There is a possibility that individuals involved in these strikes could face prosecution in a future administration [12][13] - Liability for potential war crimes or murder could extend up and down the chain of command, with those who pulled the trigger also being held accountable [13][14] - A secret DOJ memo exists that approves of these boat strikes based on the claim that the US is in a state of armed conflict with drug cartels [15][16] - Even with the DOJ memo, the "double tap" strike on individuals who posed no risk and were out of the fight would still be considered a crime [17][18][20]

Legal Interpretation - Few legal scholars believe that blowing up drug boats constitutes an "armed conflict" as argued by the Trump administration [1] Political Stance - The Trump administration argues it is engaged in an "armed conflict" with drug gangs [1]

Military Operations & Legal Concerns - The Trump administration authorized strikes that were not congressionally approved, drawing scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans [4] - Secretary Hegsth's explanations regarding the second strike on September 2nd have been inconsistent, raising questions about competence and truthfulness [5][6][7] - There are concerns about potential war crimes and whether the US military is adhering to the laws of war [17][18][19] - The administration is perceived as potentially redefining the laws of war and the definition of "war" to justify lethal force against drug traffickers [21][22][23][24] Drug Interdiction & Geopolitical Strategy - The effectiveness of current US military efforts in the Caribbean to combat drug trafficking is questioned, despite significant resources deployed [13][14] - The focus on Venezuela is questioned, with the speaker suggesting the real center of the drug problem is in Colombia, where cocoa production has tripled in the last 10 years [15] - The speaker suggests a potential motive for the US presence in the Caribbean is to force Maduro out of power and gain access to Venezuela's oil reserves, estimated at 300 million barrels [14] Congressional Oversight & Accountability - Admiral Bradley is expected to testify before Congress regarding the decision to execute the second strike [2][3][11] - Congress has been absent in authorizing the use of military force, which is their constitutional responsibility [16] - There is a call for a congressional investigation into the events surrounding the strikes and Secretary Hegsth's role [10]