Legal and Ethical Concerns - The White House is defending the strike, asserting it falls within the president's legal authority, but lawmakers from both parties are seeking more detailed legal justification and information [1] - Concerns arise that the strikes may be illegal, particularly the second strike, as the targets were not enemy combatants but criminals who should have been arrested [1] - A former Homeland Security Chief of Staff stated that in 2018, the White House was informed that blowing up boats with migrants or unarmed combatants is illegal under international law [1] - The administration claims the strike was conducted in self-defense to protect US interests, but questions remain about whether the law of armed conflict applies, as it may not be an armed conflict [4][6] - Legal experts suggest that if the law of armed conflict doesn't apply, targeting individuals on the boat could lead to murder charges under federal law [6] - Even if the administration claims a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels, shipwrecked individuals are entitled to special protection and should not be targeted [7] Investigation and Accountability - Congress is seeking more information, including videos and communications, to determine who gave the order for the strikes and under what legal authority [1] - The House Armed Services Committee expects Admiral Bradley to provide answers regarding the order and the legal basis for the operation [1] - Secretary Hegsth allegedly watched the video feed of the strikes and ordered that there be no survivors, raising questions about his responsibility [2] - Senator Mark Kelly suggests the Pentagon may be looking for a scapegoat and points out that Secretary Hegsth was present and watching the operation live [11][12] - There are concerns that the administration is engaged in a "blizzard of illegality," potentially exposing federal employees and US service members to illegal orders [16] Operational Changes and Protocols - Protocols seem to have changed during the boat strike campaign, as subsequent strikes resulted in survivors being rescued [8] - Congressional oversight is needed to determine what protocols existed for the first strike and what led to the change in approach [9][10]

We have MS Now's Laura Baron Lopez at the White House and our senior national security reporter David RH in Washington. Also with us, New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker. He's an MS now military uh I should say political contributor and MS Now military analyst, retired Lieutenant General Steph Twitty is joining us as well. Laura, the White House is now admitting there was a second strike here. How is the White House defending it? So that's right, Anna. After over the weekend, the Pent ...