Mike Brest, defense reporter for the Washington Examiner, examines a September 2nd Navy strike on a Venezuelan drug boat—confirmed by Secretary of Defense Hagseth, who left before a follow-up attack killing survivors—ordered by Admiral Frank Bradley, amid 20+ similar operations linked to over 80 deaths. Anonymous claims of a second strike spark debate, with lawmakers questioning war crimes and Hagseth defending "flexible" rules of engagement, while the Pentagon investigates Senator Mark Kelly and five Democrats for urging troops to reject illegal orders. Legal experts doubt prosecution under UCMJ, yet Hagseth’s purge of JAG officers raises concerns about military accountability, as calls challenge the strikes’ legitimacy and broader implications for U.S. foreign policy. [Automatically generated summary]
All right, so let's talk first about that second strike on the alleged drug boat in September and what you learned from yesterday's cabinet meeting.
unidentified
So the first thing that we should talk about is that this strike occurred or the series of strikes targeting this vessel was on September 2nd.
And so Secretary Hegset said yesterday that he was in the room when the initial operation happened.
He talked about the fog of war, seeing the wreckage of the vessel.
He then left and went about his day, he said.
And it was after he left the military operators involved in the mission realized that there were survivors clinging to the wreckage.
It was at that point after the Secretary had left that the military senior officer in charge ordered another strike to target the survivors of the initial operation.
And so the secretary was very clear in saying that he supported the Admiral's decision to carry out the follow-up strike, but he was not in the room for it and did not know about it before it occurred.
And does that comport kind of with your reporting that Secretary Hagseth was not in the room when that second strike happened?
unidentified
So it's hard to tell because all of this information about this first strike is coming out now, now almost more than two months later.
And so a lot of the reporting that myself and other journalists in the national security realm have focused on have been the continuation of these strikes, not looking at necessarily the first one.
And so there have been more than 20 of these operations targeting various vessels that the government says are coming from Venezuela carrying drugs to the United States, and they've killed more than 80 people at this point.
What are the sources for that second strike that killed the two survivors?
unidentified
So it's unclear exactly where some of the anonymous reporting is coming from, but we can only take some of that reporting with a grain of salt and combine it with the acknowledgments we have from defense officials who have come out and spoken publicly like the Secretary.
So Admiral Frank Bradley will be talking to lawmakers tomorrow.
This is a closed classified briefing.
C-SPAN cameras will not be there unfortunately.
But will there be a readout?
Will we find out what happened?
unidentified
So I'm sure that the lawmakers who are very eager to hear from him will be coming back and speaking to the media about what they heard.
And so you're right that we, I would love to be a fly on the wall of that briefing room, but we won't be there because it's a closed-door briefing.
And so hopefully he'll be there to answer their questions and then those lawmakers will likely leave and be able to inform reporters whether or not he was able to satisfy their questions.
Now some lawmakers have said that this could amount to a war crime.
Has that ever happened before that there has been accusations of war crimes?
And then what happens?
unidentified
So there have been throughout the history of the U.S. military several instances where there are accusations of war crimes dating back to various conflicts.
And so there are investigations.
There can be demotions or people held responsible for decisions that were made in the fog of war.
Now the Wall Street Journal actually on the front page is talking about Secretary Hegseth and their headline is Hegseth has long sought new rules for war.
It talks about the controversy around his statements calling them, you know, he's complained about quote stupid rules of engagement and talked about it in his book.
What do we know about where he stands on this idea of, no, you cannot strike, you know, combatants that have been disabled and can't fight anymore?
unidentified
So as you said, I think a great place to look for Secretary Hegseth's personal ideology on the subject is his own writing and his own discussions before he was in the position he's currently in.
And so when you look back at even the book he wrote, a theme of that and what he's carried over into his term as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of War is that people in Washington, in his opinion, should not be dictating the way active duty service members carry out their operations.
You know, he doesn't believe that politicians who are not in jeopardy on the front line should necessarily be policing the way service members are carrying out life and death situations.
And besides this classified briefing tomorrow, what else is planned on the Hill around this topic?
unidentified
So the Secretary himself is expected to address the Pentagon's new media corps later today if that goes on as scheduled.
And so there are, we could expect to see additional briefings if the Senate Armed Services and House Armed Services Committee are not satisfied with whatever comes of tomorrow's briefing with Admiral Bradley.
So it's unclear exactly what the pathway forward is, but we know that lawmakers are itching to get more information about not just the second strike of the first operation, but the entire strategy so far and moving forward.
He's a defense reporter for the Washington Examiner.
You can go ahead and start giving us a call now if you'd like to talk to him.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
And our line for active and former military is 202-748-8003.
I want to ask you about the Pentagon has said that they will conduct a thorough review of Senator Mark Kelly.
He's obviously former military.
He's a retired Navy captain.
Tell us where that stands now.
unidentified
So the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, has asked the Secretary of the Navy, John Phelan, to conduct this interview that you mentioned, and he's expecting a readout of that investigation around this time next week.
And so we should or could see movement on this as early as the middle of next week when this Hegseth deadline comes through.
So Secretary Hegsteth has called for an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly and the five other Democrats who participated in this video that came out about two weeks ago now in which they warned service members not to carry out illegal orders.
And so it was a little bit of a double negative there even in their delivery.
And so their belief is that service members needed a reminder.
not to carry out illegal orders and that they personally can be held responsible if they do so.
That is long-standing U.S. law dating back to the Vietnam War.
You cannot use the my commander told me to as a defense of committing a war crime.
And so the Secretary and the Pentagon believe these six Democrats, even though they were repeating factual U.S. law, they were subtly trying to undermine both the Secretary and the President's agenda of what they're trying to accomplish.
And so Secretary Hagseth has ordered the interview, or the, excuse me, has ordered the investigation into Senator Mark Kelly because he's the only one of the six that are still legally required to abide by the UCMJ or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And so this investigation that the Navy's carrying out could play out in a number of different ways.
Some of the military legal experts have told me that they don't believe accurately repeating U.S. law is worthy of a crime.
However, there are different laws that adjudicate the UCMJ versus these traditional law.
And that's why, even though we could in theory see an investigation by the Department of Justice, we haven't yet.
So in theory, if, and this is, again, dependent upon the Navy's review, but they could recommend that Senator Mark Kelly is brought back to active duty to be court-martialed, in which he could face charges under the UCMJ.
However, that is getting ahead of ourselves a little bit in terms of not knowing what exactly the Navy review will find.
And typically, the people in the military that are going to determine, you know, this is a legal order, this is according to the laws of war, are JAG officers.
Tell us about their role and where we are with the top JAG officers in the military currently.
unidentified
So it's interesting you brought that up because Secretary Hegseth earlier this year dismissed many of the top judge advocate generals, their JAG officers, who essentially provide somewhat of a check on the way the military is operating.
They often will provide either a green light or somewhat of a red light in terms of the conduct potentially being carried out.
And what was the rationale that he gave for dismissing them?
unidentified
There was little rationale given at the time.
And so one of the things that we're seeing now is between his comments to tie in our whole conversation to his comments about sort of restrictions placed on military from Washington, he also sort of lumps in JAG officers into that collective burden that he feels sort of outsiders are placing on the way service members carry out their operations.
They are, I would say, checks on the way the people on the front lines operate.
And so anyway, for anyone who is not right there in the front lines, he says he will have service members' backs.
And there is a lot of comments to believe that these are the types of situations he's talking about in which there may be some concern about the legality, but he will come to their defense as he has with Admiral Bradley.
All right, let's talk to callers and we'll start with James in Akron, Ohio, Democrat.
James, good morning.
You're on with Mike Brest.
unidentified
I have a couple of problems.
First of all, this thing will not mute.
Why?
Turn it off.
I don't understand.
We got this stuff going on.
Donald Trump's saying he knows nothing about anything.
He has sex, according to him, he's the most uninformed person in the world.
And generals and people in the military, they have been interviewed several times over the years stating the same things that these people put on a recording.
I don't understand what they're trying to do.
First of all, we are blowing up people way on the other side of the world.