![\"\"](\"https:\/\/greatamericanewsdesk.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/1080px-Pete_Hegseth_45527410795-600x400.jpg\")
White House: strike was lawful \u2014 and \u201cin self-defense\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Pentagon has pushed back on key elements of the reporting. But at the White House briefing Monday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not deny that a follow-up strike occurred. Instead, she framed the Sept. 2 operation as lawful and defensive, saying it was conducted \u201cin self-defense\u201d in international waters and \u201cin accordance with the law of armed conflict.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nLeavitt said: “On September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes,” adding: “Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.” <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Pressed on whether the admiral ordered a second strike because survivors remained after the first, Leavitt declined to discuss operational specifics \u2014 while emphasizing the admiral\u2019s discretion. She also disputed the most incendiary allegation about Hegseth\u2019s initial guidance, saying: “I would reject that the secretary of War ever said that,” before adding: “However, the president has made it quite clear that if narco-terrorists, again, are trafficking illegal drugs toward the United States, he has the authority to kill them.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why lawmakers are calling it a possible war-crimes issue<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The allegations matter not just politically, but legally. Under the law of armed conflict, the permissibility of using lethal force often turns on whether a person remains a legitimate military target \u2014 for example, whether they pose an active threat or are otherwise directly participating in hostilities. If survivors were incapacitated and no longer threatening U.S. forces, critics argue a follow-up strike could violate established protections. That legal question is now central to the pressure campaign Congress is building around Hegseth and the Pentagon\u2019s evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dispute has also exposed an ongoing split on Capitol Hill. Democrats \u2014 and some Republicans \u2014 have questioned both the proof that targeted boats were actually carrying drugs and the legal theory supporting repeated strikes without explicit congressional authorization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Venezuela tensions raise the stakes for the meeting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Cabinet session comes as U.S.-Venezuela tensions intensify, with the administration accusing President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro of enabling drug trafficking. Reports indicate the White House is weighing broader options, and the strikes have become part of a larger argument about whether the U.S. is drifting toward a more direct confrontation. <\/p>\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/greatamericanewsdesk.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Nicolas_Maduro_2019-10-25_01-600x370.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n