UPDATE: Rep. Jim Himes has just declared that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth possesses “zero credibility” regarding the recent military strikes on a suspected drug trafficking boat. This statement comes in the wake of troubling new details surrounding the September 2 strike, which has ignited fierce debate among lawmakers.
During a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, Himes revealed significant inconsistencies in the Pentagon’s explanations for the military action, which has drawn intense scrutiny. Himes, a prominent figure in the House Intelligence Committee, emphasized the need for transparency, stating, “It’s really important that this video be made public.” Lawmakers were shown footage of the second strike that reportedly resulted in the deaths of two survivors from the initial attack, raising ethical concerns over the military’s use of force.
Himes expressed his deep concern, saying, “What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.” He underscored the emotional weight of the situation, urging the public to view the footage to form their own opinions. “I know how the public is going to react because I felt my own reaction,” Himes remarked.
The U.S. military has conducted over 20 strikes against alleged drug traffickers since the onset of these operations, with more than 80 fatalities reported. The campaign has raised legal questions, as it is being conducted without explicit Congressional authorization. The Trump administration defends its actions, claiming legal grounds by designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations, despite lacking evidence directly linking the vessels to such groups.
In a counter to Himes’ claims, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who also attended the briefing, defended the military’s actions. He argued that the individuals targeted were not incapacitated and that the follow-up strike was necessary to neutralize potential threats. “They were sitting or standing on top of a capsized boat,” Cotton stated during his appearance on “Meet the Press.”
Himes, however, firmly opposed Cotton’s position, asserting, “If someone has been struck and continues to engage in hostilities… they may be a legitimate target, but if they are outside of combat, they are not.” This stark division among lawmakers highlights the contentious nature of U.S. military engagement in drug enforcement operations.
The briefing included insights from military leaders such as Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who oversaw the mission. Himes questioned the moral implications of decisions made by leaders like Bradley in high-pressure environments.
Hegseth, in his defense, indicated that a “reattack” was deemed necessary due to potential threats posed by survivors having access to communication or remaining cargo. “From what I understood then and what I understand now, I fully support that strike,” he stated, suggesting that the military had to act decisively.
As the fallout from these strikes continues, Himes urges for public scrutiny and accountability. He emphasized the importance of understanding the full impact of military actions on human lives, stating, “There’s a certain amount of sympathy for going after drug runners, but people need to see what it looks like when the full force of the United States military is turned on two guys clinging to a piece of wood.”
With bipartisan disagreements heating up, this critical issue is poised to dominate discussions in Washington. As the situation develops, the American public will be watching closely for further revelations and responses from officials involved in this controversial military campaign.