Pentagon Knew Survivors Remained Before Second Strike, Raising War Crime Questions

Pentagon's Second Strike Controversy

• 🎯 Sources reveal the Pentagon was aware of survivors after an initial September strike on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean.
• ⚠️ Despite this knowledge, a second strike was ordered to sink the vessel, raising significant legal and ethical questions.
• ❓ It remains unclear who issued the order for the second strike and if Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was involved.

Legal and Ethical Implications

• ⚖️ A Marine veteran and former law of war instructor explains that ordering the killing of survivors, especially shipwrecked mariners who are protected, would be a violation of international and US law.
• 💡 The legal assessment hinges on the intent behind the second strike – whether it was to eliminate survivors or to neutralize ongoing cartel operations.
• 📜 The situation is being closely watched by members of Congress, with discussions about potentially implementing the War Powers Act.

Pete Hegseth's Defense and Scrutiny

• 🗣️ Pete Hegseth has defended the second strike, citing the "fog of war" and claiming he did not see survivors, though he also stated he did not stay for the remainder of the mission.
• 😟 Hegseth is reportedly feeling uncomfortable and nervous about the upcoming scrutiny, particularly regarding statements from the commander of US Special Operations Command before Congress.
• 📌 While not explicitly blamed, Hegseth is being pointed to as the one in charge and potentially the one who gave the orders for the second strike.

Signal Gate and Sensitive Information

• 📱 A separate report from the Pentagon's watchdog found that Pete Hegseth's sharing of text messages via the Signal app contained sensitive, non-classified information.
• ⚠️ This disclosure allegedly put US military personnel and a military strike at risk, contradicting Hegseth's claims that the information was not classified.
• 🏛️ Congress is examining this finding closely, with the potential for impeachment proceedings against a cabinet member if deemed necessary.
• 📉 This finding refutes not only Hegseth's position but also those of other senior officials who reviewed the information, indicating a significant debate and pressure on Hegseth and the White House.