"You know, we start first with the the legal opinion under which these attacks on these boats first began. And members of Congress had questions as to whether or not the validity of the legal opinion, the construct of the legal opinion, and then the operations that that were being undertaken under the constructs of legal opinion."
"But what's really clear here is that, you know, this is not necessarily the the normal rules of engagement. This is not a battlefield. And where they're undertaking these attacks under, you know, what is this issue of attacking the drug trade, you know, this is not the normal, you know, construct that we have of terrorism where we think of like ISIS, or Afghanistan, or Iraq."
"So there's very much concerns where we all go back to the issue of the intelligence. And what intelligence is being used, what do we really know about these individuals? What do we know about this cargo? What do we know about the communications they hear? And quite frankly, many members have very much concerns as to whether or not the accuracy of what information is being"
Strikes were conducted against vessels identified as drug runners, raising questions about the legal basis used to authorize those attacks. Lawmakers seek clarity on the legal opinion that justified the strikes, its construction, and how operations were executed under it. Concerns include whether the actions fall under the law of war manual and whether the engagements adhered to traditional rules of engagement given that these were not battlefield operations. Members question the quality and accuracy of intelligence underpinning targeting decisions, including identification of individuals, characterization of cargo, intercepted communications, and overall reliability of the information used to carry out strikes.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]