Скачать или смотреть Abby Phillip HUMILIATED By Batya Ungar-Sargon In Live War Debate

This explosive CNN panel discussion examines the growing controversy surrounding allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Trump administration may have ordered a war crime during a military strike operation against suspected narco-terrorists. The heated debate features military lawyers, political analysts, and commentators clashing over whether striking a disabled or surrendering target violates the laws of armed conflict and rules of engagement that govern American military operations worldwide. Understanding this controversy requires examining the chain of command questions, the legal framework governing military strikes, and the broader implications for United States credibility in upholding international humanitarian law.
The central dispute revolves around whether Admiral Bradley gave an order for a second strike on a target that had already been disabled and whose occupants appeared to be surrendering or no longer posed an immediate threat. Initial Washington Post reporting suggested that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth may have communicated intentions that led to the second strike, creating questions about who ultimately bears responsibility for what multiple lawmakers and military experts have characterized as a potential war crime. The White House response, which has involved pointing fingers directly at Admiral Bradley while Pete Hegseth defended himself on social media, reveals an administration struggling to manage the fallout from an operation that insiders leaked to reporters because they were uncomfortable with what transpired.
The legal analysis provided by military lawyers on the panel clarifies critical distinctions in the laws of war that many viewers may not fully understand. When a military target has been disabled rather than destroyed, international humanitarian law and American rules of engagement impose strict limitations on whether additional strikes remain legally justified. The fundamental principle protecting combatants who surrender or who no longer pose active threats exists not primarily to protect enemies but to establish reciprocal protections for American soldiers in combat situations. If United States forces violate these laws of armed conflict, adversaries gain justification for similar treatment of captured or wounded American personnel, creating dangerous precedents that undermine the safety of troops deployed in hostile environments.
The debate over whether designating an organization as a foreign terrorist organization through the State Department automatically authorizes lethal targeting reveals important misunderstandings about how American military operations are legally authorized. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio can designate groups as terrorist organizations for purposes of sanctions, immigration restrictions, and criminal prosecution of material support, this designation alone does not provide legal authority to conduct military strikes. Targeting decisions must still comply with congressional authorization for use of military force, international law obligations, and the specific rules of engagement governing particular operations. The confusion about these legal frameworks demonstrates how complex questions of military law can be oversimplified in political discourse.
The panel discussion also explores the broader context of American military strikes across different presidential administrations, with contentious debate about whether media coverage of this incident represents appropriate scrutiny or partisan double standards. Defenders of the Trump administration point to controversial drone strikes during the Obama and Biden administrations, arguing that comparable incidents received less intensive media attention and public outrage. Critics counter that controversial strikes under previous administrations, including the killing of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, generated substantial controversy and eventually resulted in disclosure of legal opinions justifying those operations. The demand for transparency regarding the legal reasoning supporting this strike reflects appropriate congressional oversight regardless of which administration occupies the White House.
The internal dissent within the military and Department of Defense represents perhaps the most troubling aspect of this controversy, as the Washington Post obtained information about the strike from sources uncomfortable with leadership decisions and operational conduct. When military personnel feel compelled to leak information about operations they believe violate laws of war, this signals serious breakdowns in command climate and legal compliance. The subsequent White House statement characterized by one official as throwing service members under the bus rather than accepting leadership responsibility exacerbates tensions and raises questions about whether the Trump administration will protect personnel who followed potentially unlawful orders.