@rgoodlaw.bsky.social
https://www.youtube.com/@RGoodLaw Co-editor-in-chief @justsecurity.org. Chaired Prof at NYU Law. Former Chaired Prof Harvard. Former Special Counsel Defense Dept. https://www.justsecurity.org/author/goodmanryan
6/ CNN confirms:
"The survivors were also waving at something in the air, the sources said Bradley told them, although it’s unclear whether they might have been surrendering or asking the US aircraft they had spotted for help."
By @natashabertrand.bsky.social
5/
Wrong drugs
Wrong direction
2/ source
Exclusive: Boat at center of double-tap strike controversy was meeting vessel headed to Suriname, admiral told lawmakers
By @natashabertrand.bsky.social
On left:
President Trump Statement Sept. 2, 2025:
"The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in international waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States."
On right:
(Under penalty of law) military leaders told Congress headed to Suriname.
4/ I would love to know how the secret DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Opinion tries to get around such facts of heading away from the United States (to Suriname) and most likely onto Europe.
Or the military ops maybe don't match the secret legal justifications.
3/ And, yes, the administration's attempted constitutional and other legal claims unravel if boats are delivering drugs (let alone, cocaine not fentanyl) to Europe instead.
05.12.2025 22:28 — 👍 127 🔁 22 💬 2 📌 0
2/ Problems for Bradley's credibility.
On left:
Bradley argued to lawmakers was "still a possibility" drugs could've ultimately made way to US.
On right:
Trump State Department: "Suriname is a transit country for South American cocaine, the majority of which is likely destined for Europe."
How is U.S. military killing these 11 people keeping drugs (fentanyl) out of the United States?
USG knew the drugs (cocaine) were headed to Suriname.
Yes, that's the OTHER DIRECTION.
Read what Bradley-Caine told lawmakers:
Scoop by @natashabertrand.bsky.social
🧵 1/
2/2 On the latter point about POTUS needing affirmative authorization, big recommend:
Dissecting the Trump Administration’s Effort to Circumvent the War Powers Resolution for Boat Strikes
By @bcfinucane.bsky.social
It's important to recognize great journalism when you see it
Kudos to @JohnBerman for this well-informed series of questions
One note: Sen. Cotton is wrong at end. POTUS needs affirmative authorization from Congress under the War Powers Resolution. Current ops are illegal.
1/2
5/ source (Gift Link):
Video of Boat Strike Shows Survivors Waving Before Fatal Follow-Up Attack
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/u...
4/ Even worse on these officials account, it seems if the third view is correct, that was a reason to kill the survivors.
You read that right, and I am not exaggerating.⤵️
A shipwrecked person beckoning others to come rescue them is a basis for killing them.
3/ "But some lawmakers viewing the video rejected that interpretation. There were no other unknown aircraft or boats in visual range, and no other boats involved in drug trafficking could have rescued them."
And even worse, if I am understanding this logic correctly, ...
2/ What Adm. Bradley and Gen. Caine told Congress raises credibility concerns.
"The military officers briefing Congress on Thursday said the survivors could have been trying to beckon to other alleged drug traffickers in a plane or boat to come get them...."
But ... get this ...
NEW info on shipwreck attack. It gets worse.
The 2 survivors climbed atop wreckage and waved to overhead.
"Some of the people viewing the video thought ... could have been an attempt to surrender"
Others "said the most logical explanation was ... signaling for a rescue."
1/
2/ "An illustrative case is the second bombing of a vessel during military operations .... [T]the conditions typically associated with the fog of war—confusion, lack of information, and rapid developments—were not present."
05.12.2025 03:39 — 👍 204 🔁 39 💬 2 📌 0
The subheading of this essay is a powerful note to strike:
"The real danger is not the fog of war itself, but leaders who hide behind it when the picture is already clear."
The author is Brigadier General (Ret.) Donald C. Bolduc, former U.S. Army Special Forces Commander
NYTimes adds: "But the video did not show any radios or satellite phones, according to the people familiar with the briefings, and a surveillance plane apparently did not spot any nearby boat."
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/04/u...
"The survivors could hypothetically have floated to safety, been rescued, and carried on with trafficking the drugs, the logic went.
"The other source with direct knowledge of the briefing called that rationale 'f**king insane.'”
3/ Looks like DoD officials previously made false statements to Congress:
Defense officials had previously been arguing "they were legitimate targets because they appeared to be radioing for help or backup ... made that claim in at least one briefing in September for congressional staff."
2/ Secretary Hegseth bears ultimate responsibility as the designated Target Engagement Authority.
And recall how many times he has said Admiral Bradley acted within the authority Hegseth gave him, and that Bradley made "the correct" decision.
🚨🚨🚨This collapses the one 'argument' Hegseth had against it being a war crime:
"The two men killed as they floated holding onto their capsized boat .. DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE RADIO OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, the top military official overseeing the strike told lawmakers."
1/
2/ "'There was no boat. There was wreckage. There was no radio. There were two guys clinging to a tiny non-awash portion of the keel of a capsized boat,' said one lawmaker familiar with Thursday’s congressional briefings and the video that was shown."
www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
This seems a REALLY big deal:
"Military leaders told lawmakers that they assessed the survivors MIGHT 'look' for a radio, the person said. But it’s hard to see how they could after the first strike, the person said." (my emphasis)
1/2
www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
2/ On DOJ "determined to try again."
@kendilanian-nbc.bsky.social reporting here:
Whatever you may think about the Tish James case, the defense's legal claims of vindictive prosecution and the evidence of a corrupt use of DOJ power just got ...
stronger (trying a second indictment) and
stronger (grand jury denial) and
stronger (DOJ determined to try again)
2/ Second, let's see the video.
I'd love to know how Senator Cotton (Hegseth-Bradley) was able to detect these shipwrecked people were trying to "stay in the fight" versus clinging to dear life in an effort to survive.
Killed them because they might "stay in the fight"⬇️
Even if you buy all the legal falsehoods (that this is an 'armed conflict,' that drugs are war-sustaining objects), the 2 shipwrecked were in no way, shape or form engaged in "active combat activities" (the actual legal test).
1/
2/
New York Times (confirming Wall Street Journal):
"What seems clear?
It appears to not be in dispute that Mr. Hegseth was the 'target engagement authority' ....”
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/04/u...
Pete Hegseth bears responsibility for THIS
(hat tip @natashabertrand.bsky.social)
