U. S. Military Actions in Venezuela Waters Raise Questions

The U. S. military's recent actions in Venezuelan waters have sparked a wave of questions and concerns among lawmakers and experts. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are set to face Congress to discuss the escalating military operations, which have led to the destruction of over 20 boats and the deaths of at least 95 people. The focus of the discussions will be on a particular incident that occurred in September. On that day, a U. S. military strike killed two survivors who were clinging to the wreckage of a boat that had been initially attacked for allegedly carrying cocaine. The strike has raised serious ethical and legal questions, with critics arguing that the use of force against civilians is unjustified and potentially illegal. Congress has been pushing for more transparency and accountability from the Trump administration. Lawmakers have demanded the release of video footage of the initial operation, arguing that the American public has a right to see what happened. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, has been particularly vocal in his criticism, stating that the actions of the U. S. military in this case do not align with American values. However, not all lawmakers are critical of the campaign. Senator Jim Risch, a Republican from Idaho, has defended the attacks, claiming that they are legal under U. S. and international law and have saved American lives by preventing drugs from reaching the U. S. The debate over the legality and morality of the strikes is likely to continue as lawmakers delve deeper into the details of the September 2 incident.The Trump administration has argued that the strike was justified because the survivors were attempting to overturn the boat. However, Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley, who ordered the second strike, acknowledged in private briefings that the two individuals were unlikely to succeed in their attempt. The admiral also revealed that the decision to strike was made because it was believed that drugs were in the hull of the boat and the mission was to ensure their destruction. Experts have pointed out that the strike seems to contradict the Pentagon's own manual on the laws of war, which states that orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. The debate over the legality and morality of the strikes is likely to continue as lawmakers delve deeper into the details of the September 2 incident. The Trump administration's argument that drugs bound for the U. S. are equivalent to an attack on American lives has resulted in lawmakers trying to parse whether laws were violated and, more broadly, what Trump's goals are with Venezuela. The upcoming briefings from Hegseth, Rubio, and Bradley are expected to shed more light on the situation and provide answers to the many questions that have been raised.