And joining me now is Washington Congressman Adam Smith, the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. And I welcome you back. It's always good to have you, sir.So, before we get to Venezuela, I do want to get your reaction to the two horrific attacks that happened overnight. One at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. The other at the Jewish holiday celebration in Sydney, Australia.>> Yeah, the these are terrible tragedies. And you can think of of the victims, their families, everyone ...

Allegations of Wrongdoing - Secretary Hegsth allegedly ordered the killing of survivors from an initial US attack [1] - Hegsth claimed the military operation was not related to artificial intelligence and that they knew exactly who was in the boat, identifying them as Trenda Arag, a narco-terrorist organization [1][2] - Hegsth allegedly instructed top generals and commanders to ignore the rules of engagement [2] - The White House admitted the strikes were within the authority of Hegsth's order [5][6] Military Policy Shift - The defense secretary advocated for training warriors to win wars, not just defend, and to untie the hands of war fighters [3] - The new policy emphasizes intimidation, demoralization, hunting, and killing enemies, moving away from politically correct rules of engagement [3] - The focus is on common sense, maximum lethality, and authority for war fighters [3] Legal and Ethical Concerns - Concerns are raised about the legality of targeting survivors of an attack, potentially violating the US military code [4] - The discussion references "stupid" and "politically correct" rules of engagement within the US military code [4]

Operation Oversight & Legality - Questions arise regarding who ordered the strike and the operational chain of command, specifically if Admiral Bradley was in charge [1] - Concerns exist about the rules of engagement, with allegations that Secretary Haggth's instructions were to "kill them all" [2] - The legality of the ongoing operation is questioned, even the initial strike on a boat carrying cocaine not immediately destined for the US [4] - The strike conducted on September 2nd is defended as self-defense to protect Americans and vital US interests, conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict [11][12] - The strike is argued against as self-defense, stating that if it's not self-defense, it's illegal, regardless of location [13] Mission & Objectives - The true mission is questioned, with concerns that it's more about regime change in Venezuela than addressing the drug problem in the US [7] - Secretary Hegsth's "cavalier cowboy attitude" towards the operation is criticized, especially considering the potential loss of life [8] - Secretary Hegsth stated they are reestablishing deterrence and credibility, noting it's becoming hard to find boats to strike, which was met with laughter [5][6] - The administration's urgency seems to be stopping an invasion of Venezuela in an attempt at regime change [22] Transparency & Congressional Oversight - Congress is seeking transparency and demanding the administration follow the law by providing information about the operation [18][19] - The administration has not yet provided Congress with the exorder (executive order) for the attacks in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which was issued at the end of July [19] - The White House is perceived as uncooperative and believing that the law doesn't apply to them [17][20]

Defense Department Investigation & Concerns - Senator Mark Kelly and other lawmakers are under investigation by the Defense Department for a video reminding service members to follow the law [1][10] - The investigation was initiated following a tweet from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth [11] - Senator Kelly expresses concern about the competence of Secretary Hegseth and the potential for illegal orders, citing President Trump's past statements [1] "Double Tap" Strike Incident - The "double tap" strike incident is inconsistent with the laws of armed conflict and the Department of Defense's manual of war [1] - Senator Kelly calls for a thorough investigation into the incident, expressing distrust in the administration to provide complete information [1] - Secretary Hegseth was present and watching the operation live, making him responsible as the senior member in the operational chain of command [1] Secretary Hegseth's Leadership & Conduct - Secretary Hegseth's leadership style is described as "swaggering around" and using a "macho lexicon," referring to himself as the "Secretary of War" [1] - There is regret among some Republican senators who voted to confirm Secretary Hegseth, acknowledging his incompetence [1] - Secretary Hegseth is criticized for blaming others and lacking responsibility, contrasting with typical leadership behavior [1][8] Rules of Engagement & Accountability - Executing survivors in the water is against the law, and the proper procedure is to rescue survivors and then sink the boat [1] - Members of the military have a responsibility to not follow illegal orders [1] - There is a need for transparency and accountability regarding the incident, including making the legal analysis public [4][5][6]

Rules of Engagement Concerns - The report highlights concerns that statements from the Secretary of Defense, the President, and Steven Miller could be interpreted as potentially leading to war crimes [2] - The importance of clearly defined rules of engagement for military personnel is emphasized, with each individual typically carrying a card outlining these rules for specific missions [1] - Rules of engagement are intended to protect both military personnel and civilians in combat zones [2][3] Identifying the Enemy - The report asserts that not everyone encountered in a conflict zone is an enemy [4] - The report suggests the "enemy within" is not the American people or the American military, leaving the identification of this enemy open to interpretation [4] Ethical Considerations in Combat - The report questions the ethical implications of military actions, specifically regarding potential harm to civilians, such as families collecting food [3] - The report stresses the importance of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants in a combat zone [3] - Maintaining positive relationships with the local population, even while pursuing enemies, is deemed crucial [3]

Military Leadership & Strategy - The Secretary of Defense advocated for prioritizing intimidation and lethality over law, suggesting the US military should "untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country" [3] - The Secretary of Defense promoted his book, arguing the US military should ignore the Geneva Conventions and international law, advocating for winning wars "according to our own rules" [1] - The President suggested using US cities as training grounds for the military, raising concerns about the potential use of the military against American citizens [9][10] Political & Operational Concerns - A meeting was convened, gathering top military leaders from around the world for a 45-minute political speech, a move considered unusual and potentially disruptive to ongoing operations [12][13] - Concerns were raised that the timing of the meeting was poor, coinciding with Russian air activity, a cyber attack, and the eve of a government shutdown [14] - The Secretary of Defense's comments on rules of engagement were seen as distorting their importance in protecting non-combatants and ensuring responsible command [18][20]