Behind the second strike

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Tuesday the 9th of December.

This is WORLD Radio and we’re so glad to have you along today. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

First up on The World and Everything in It: legal counsel and lethal force.

National security committees in Congress got a closed door briefing with top military officials last week, as critics of U.S. airstrikes on Venezuelan drug boats continue asking questions.

REICHARD: Top of the heap, did the U.S. military have legal standing to launch a second strike on remnants of a vessel with survivors hanging on?

On Saturday, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth answered questions about whether his department would release video of the strikes.

TOMLINSON: So Mr. Secretary, you will be releasing that full video?

HEGSETH: We are reviewing it right now.

TOMLINSON: Is that a yes or no?

EICHER: Hegseth went on to say that departmental review is to make sure releasing it does not expose classified methods or military secrets.

Joining us now is retired Col. Greg Thompson. He served the US Air Force on the JAG Corps. He’s currently professor of criminal justice and national security at Cedarville University.

REICHARD: Colonel, good morning.

GREG THOMPSON: Good morning. It's great to be with you. Thank you for having me.

REICHARD: Let’s start with a process question. My understanding is that attacks like these in the Caribbean don’t happen without strict legal oversight. How involved are lawyers and legal analysts in military decisions on these types of missions?

THOMPSON: Very involved. And one thing I could say is I've had the opportunity throughout my career to give advice on military strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the way this is being reported, as if one person, in this case, either Secretary Hegseth or Admiral Bradley, is making a decision in a vacuum—I would be shocked, having been in the military. All decisions are extremely well staffed, looked at by echelons of command, lawyers and people to include what I would expect in a very first strike like this September 2, to have a very robust concept of operations, detailed that would have gone all the way up to the Secretary of Defense, identifying what the proposed plan of action, where the force is going to come from, what ammunition is going to be used. Where do we expect, based on intelligence, these boats are going to come from, and I will add, based on my experience, I will also be surprised if there wasn't some consideration of a restrike or re-attack.

REICHARD: A lot of media coverage on that second strike on the same target makes it sound like the U.S. military specifically targeted the survivors. Anonymous allegations of Secretary Hegseth saying “kill them all” have been contradicted by others in the room. They say those reports are false. What are we missing here?

THOMPSON: Well, I start off with a Christian perspective, which is that we need two or more witnesses before we start accusing people of being war criminals. So that was entirely concerning when I saw or heard about the Washington Post report with two anonymous sources, I was concerned from that perspective. Now, as time has gone on, we've discovered that that was probably inaccurate.

REICHARD: Let’s talk about the second strike specifically…is it legal to hit the same target again if there are survivors?

THOMPSON: First, when we're talking about a restrike, we're going to be looking at a couple things from a legal perspective. One is, what is the identified target? In this case, I have read that those three things have been identified. It was the ship, the narcotics on the ship, and the narco-terrorists on the ship, of which they're initially 11. Now we haven't seen the video or the footage, and this is why we need to have a full inquiry and go through detail minute by minute review. But it appears that the boat was at least damaged or disabled in some way, so an assessment would have to be made if the target and the mission is completed. I think that's accurate, having said that if there are individuals who are now defenseless on the vessel, we're going to have to look at an issue of proportionality, and that is, we're not going to kill innocent, defenseless people unless the military objective is great enough to warrant collateral damage will only be accepted as proportional here. I think that might be a hard argument, but again, I'm not in a position to say it is or isn't.

The second issue is going to be whether or not these individuals are engaged in the fight because they, in their, in their own right, are a target. As we mentioned, they're not a target if they're helpless under international law, if they're out of the fight or order combat, they may not be targeted, and that's really what we're talking about here, but if they're part of the fight. So for example, in Afghanistan, it wouldn't be unusual. Maybe someone's able to call in reinforcements or has the ability to still do other things and engage in harming our forces. They're still obviously engaged in the fight, and we can target them.

I would say also, the video is not going to be enough for me as a lawyer, because it's, as you know, Mary, the facts and circumstances are critical, and there's facts and circumstances that just can't be in that video. Where are the other forces? How far off of the coast is this vessel? Where are U.S. personnel in relation? What is our intelligence on? What these narco traffickers are likely to do if they're in the water? All of those things would be really important to read. Reaching this decision, the important thing is that we have a full investigation in Congress.

REICHARD: Before we go, can you think of any aspect of this story we may be missing?

THOMPSON: I've given advice on many strikes, and I've seen many strikes. War is ugly. People die when we engage our military forces, and it's going to be hard to watch no matter what the final conclusion is, I think this is a situation, my opinion, that would be advisable to allow representatives to do their job for their country, along with military members, watch this video and thorough review and be able to make decisions and if further action is needed. Of course, anyone who needs to see it should have a view-only opportunity to see it.

REICHARD: Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Greg Thompson…thanks for your time this morning. Really appreciate it!

THOMPSON:Absolutely. Thank you, Mary.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.