Pentagon Chief Pete Hegathth remains under fire over these reports of a possible war crime. Tonight, video of that infamous second strike, which killed the survivors, is still being hidden by the administration. NBC reports Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the attack, has told lawmakers that they concluded the boat was not actually heading to the United States at all, that it was going towards a South American country, and the alleged drugs on the boat were actually intended for a different continent, pos ...

Secretary Hegsith though not the only member of the president's cabinet who previously stated the military would not follow illegal orders. As Adam Liptac reports in the New York Times this morning, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the same thing just last year when she worked as a lawyer for a conservative think tank. In a friend of the court brief to the Supreme Court, Bondi wrote, quote, "Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders." Does that sound familiar.Perhaps from that video fro ...

Joining us now, independent Senator Angus King of Maine. He's a member of both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committee. So, I'll start with uh the same question I've asked everyone so far this morning.The account we have so far as described in the Atlantic especially, but showing that there is 40 minutes between the first strike and the second and that these were unarmed two men uh with no radios. as far as the latest reporting shows, um seeming to give a um wave to the US flying above surrender. Um i ...

Legal Analysis of Air Strike Incident - The legality of the air strike hinges on whether it constitutes an act of war; legal scholars argue it may be an unlawful killing if not considered an armed conflict [3] - The description of the air strike as "fog of war" is deemed inappropriate, as it is a standard outcome of using lethal force [3][4] - The victims may not have been aware they were at war, potentially misinterpreting the strike as an accident [5][6] Decision-Making Process & Accountability - The ultimate accountability rests with the Secretary of Defense, regardless of their physical presence during the event [15] - Military personnel are obligated to follow lawful orders, but must recognize and refuse patently unlawful orders [16] - Full transparency is needed, including the release of the execute order, rules of engagement, and legal advice, to fully assess the situation [17] Documentation & Record-Keeping - A strike log should exist, detailing administrative data, weapons used, target information, and battle damage assessment (BDA) [19][20] - Documentation of official government meetings related to the strike is legally required [21] - Prudent commanders should maintain records of face-to-face communications for accountability [22] Contextual Considerations - The operation lacked historical or legal precedent, making it difficult to apply existing legal frameworks [13] - The situation is complicated by applying a terrorism framework to a non-terrorism context [13]

We're training warriors, not defenders. We fight wars to win, not to defend. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement.We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality, and authority for war fighters.>> I want to bring into our coverage, Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan. and he's a member of the Armed Services Committee. Senator ...

You release video of that first boat strike on September 2nd, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike so that the American people can see for themselves what. >> I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release.No problem. >> All right. One of the biggest stories in the country for days now, and President Trump still says he knows very little about it.>> How could he. Why should he. >> I Yeah.Well, >> lawmakers hope to get more answers about the attack when ...

with Trump Defense Secretary Pete Hegsath who faces allegations of having committed or overseen a war crime. And against that backdrop, a new internal Pentagon report which is done by these watchd dogs. You may remember Trump ousted many of them.You may remember the reports and the concerns from lawyers and nonpartisan legal experts about why you need those watchdogs in government totally apart from whether you voted for or like a given administration. Well, here's an example of a watchdog doing its work. B ...

Legal & Ethical Concerns - A debate centers on whether a September boat strike constitutes a war crime [1] - Pete Hegseth, known for defending troops accused of war crimes, is central to the debate [1]

Allegations of Wrongdoing and Potential War Crimes - The report centers on allegations that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth may have been involved in a war crime related to a strike on a boat suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean [1][4][5][6] - Allegations include that a secondary strike was ordered to eliminate survivors of the initial attack [1] - Judge Andrew Napolitano called the killing of the survivors a war crime and suggested that Secretary Hegseth and others involved should be prosecuted [4][5][6] Conflicting Statements and Accountability - Secretary Hegseth's statements about his knowledge of the events surrounding the strike are inconsistent, leading to questions about his competence and honesty [1][3][4] - There are conflicting accounts of whether Secretary Hegseth was aware of the second strike and whether he ordered it [1][3][17] - The White House is potentially shifting blame to the admiral who ordered the strike, while also maintaining that the admiral acted within Secretary Hegseth's orders, creating a liability for both [9][10][19] Political Implications and Defense Strategy - The administration is standing by Secretary Hegseth, claiming he was unaware of the survivors and did not specifically order the strike against them [9][16] - Republicans are giving Secretary Hegseth latitude unless it's proven that he definitively knew there were survivors and he himself definitively ordered the strike [16] - The situation could potentially backfire on the administration, especially if the admiral is court-martialed, which could validate Democratic criticisms of the administration's recklessness [12]

Despite all of the administration's efforts to shut down access and reporting by the free press, the Washington Post still got this scoop late last week about the first of the US strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific that have now killed more than 80 people. They report that Hegsth gave a spoken directive in that September 2nd strike. According to one of two people with direct knowledge of the operation, the order was to kill everybody.Now, that on its own is very likely illegal according to experts. But ...