U. S. Military Actions in Venezuela Waters Spark Debate

The U.S. military's recent actions in the Caribbean have ignited a fierce debate among lawmakers and experts. The focus is on a September strike that resulted in the deaths of two survivors clinging to a damaged boat.

Defenders and Critics

• Supporters: Officials like Hegseth and Rubio defend the campaign, calling it a success in stopping drugs from reaching the U.S.
• Critics: Many lawmakers question the broader goals, particularly regarding Venezuela.

Controversy Over the Strike

The strike that killed the two survivors has raised serious concerns. Lawmakers demand to see the video footage of the incident, arguing that the public deserves transparency. Hegseth has not yet decided whether to release it.

• Supporting Views: Some Republicans back the campaign.
• Opposing Views: Others, like Sen. Rand Paul, criticize it, stating it goes against American values.

Shifting Rationale and Legal Concerns

The justification for the strike has evolved over time:

• Initially, the Pentagon dismissed criticisms, but new details have emerged that contradict their claims.
• Adm. Frank Bradley, who ordered the second strike, admitted that the survivors were unlikely to overturn the boat. They were waving and had not called for backup.

Legal Violations?

• Experts argue the strike may have violated the laws of war.
• The Pentagon's own manual states that firing on shipwrecked people is illegal.

Ongoing Debate

The debate continues as lawmakers seek clarity on the intelligence behind the actions and whether the laws of war were upheld.