LEILA FADEL, HOST:
Let's go now to one of those lawmakers scrutinizing that September 2 attack on a boat in the Caribbean. Representative Adam Smith of Washington is the top-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, which oversees the U.S. military. Good morning, Congressman, and thank you for being on the program.
ADAM SMITH: Well, good morning. Thanks for having me.
FADEL: Last week, you released a joint statement with the Republican committee chair, Mike Rogers, saying that you'd be, quote, "taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question." What are you planning to ask for? What does a full accounting look like?
SMITH: Well, first up, on this specific strike - but it goes beyond this specific strike, as your reporting pointed out - what happened? What - yeah. Release the video, first of all - second of all, any documents about what happened on the strike. Who ordered it, and what were the rules of engagement going into it and who made the specific order? So on that strike, that's what we want to find out. But this goes beyond this strike. I mean, what's the legality of the strikes in general? Because the law of war that we keep referring to has to do with going after enemy combatants who pose a threat to you. Now, the argument on this one is the ship was basically sinking. Two people were clinging to the side of it. No argument, those two people presented a strike. But what - or, sorry, presented a threat. But what threat did the boat itself present even before that, or any of the boats that we struck...
FADEL: Well, let's break this down a little bit.
SMITH: ...In terms of an actual military threat.
FADEL: Let's break this...
SMITH: Yes.
FADEL: ...Down a little bit. What's the difference about this second strike that killed survivors climbing - clinging to a boat? That is the accusation, right? Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, denies carrying...
SMITH: Yes.
FADEL: ...Ordering these people to...
SMITH: Sure.
FADEL: ...Be killed...
SMITH: The...
FADEL: ...Versus the...
SMITH: The difference...
FADEL: ...Dozens of other people that have been killed...
SMITH: Sure.
FADEL: ...In the first strike?
SMITH: Yeah. The difference, and one said (ph) straightforward, is the boat was disabled. The people in question were clearly disabled. They were, you know, clinging to a side of the boat in the middle of the ocean.
FADEL: Yeah.
SMITH: All right? Now, you can argue, OK, before that, they were perfectly healthy on a boat that was moving. It could conceivably be - it could much more conceivably be a threat in that sense. But again, you take that a little bit further, a threat in what sense? I mean, they were trafficking cocaine. They had no intention whatsoever of directly, in any sort of military sense, attacking the United States or any American before that. So what I hope is, yes, we are going to look into this specific strike, but we have to do much more than that.
FADEL: Will you...
SMITH: We'll look into the entire campaign in terms of what's going on. And also, let's ask the question, to your point on Venezuela, what's really going on here? Is this really about drugs, or is this about trying to take down Venezuela and maybe even putting pressure on Petro and Colombia as well? And if so, that's an entirely different thing than saying you're doing this because of a drug problem in America.
FADEL: So will this bipartisan action then be a much wider investigation than this one strike? Is that the plan?
SMITH: That's my plan. I don't know yet. And let's keep in mind that the really interesting part about this is my - you know, the Republican chairman, Mike Rogers, and the chairman in the Senate, Roger Wicker - they're both all in for this investigation on this strike. We're hoping to widen that. And there has been considerable bipartisan frustration in the House and the Senate about the lack of transparency from the Trump administration, both about the boat strikes themselves but then also about the larger plans around Venezuela. I'm going to push very hard to get us to look into all of that. But we're going to have to, you know, get the majority to go along with us on some of those things.
FADEL: Congressman, a U.S. official, as we heard, told NPR that Hegseth gave the command for two strikes to kill on that particular boat that we're discussing, in addition to two strikes to sink the boat. But Hegseth has denied ordering the survivors be killed. So if this is true, who's ultimately responsible - the admiral who carried out the order, Frank M. Bradley, or the defense secretary?
SMITH: Well, there's a chain of responsibility here. President Trump is ultimately responsible. He ordered it and allowed the operation to go forward. Secretary Hegseth is certainly responsible. But then, to the point of the video those six lawmakers put out, you know, the UCMJ is very clear on this point. You do not have to carry out illegal orders, and if you do, you're potentially liable yourself. So the whole chain of command is liable, but please understand what happened yesterday. I mean, Leavitt frequently will just answer questions, go back and forth. You know, it's very sort of spontaneous and ad hoc to some degree. She specifically read that statement. She'd - it was preprepared, ready to go word for word.
FADEL: And you're referring...
SMITH: It was a C...
FADEL: ...To Karoline Leavitt, the spokesperson...
SMITH: Yeah.
FADEL: ...For the White House.
SMITH: Yeah. It was a CYA moment for Hegseth, which is really, truly pathetic. He's the secretary of defense. He's been running around, talking about how tough he is and how he's going to do this. He's going to do that. And the second something goes south, he's like, hey, wasn't me. It was that guy - that guy over there. He did the order. So I think that was a really sad thing and one of the things that - one of many things that this administration has done to the disservice of the men and women serving in our military. You know, he's putting them in a terrible spot by giving them these highly questionable orders. And then after that, to come out and say, hey, it was that guy, not me - that's not leadership, and it's also not honest. It seems to me Secretary Hegseth is the one who's responsible for what happened here.
FADEL: The White House is saying the strike was legally justified, although we have heard the president distance himself from the second strike. What legal terms would you use to define the strikes to kill, and why?
SMITH: Yeah. Well, first of all, let's focus in on that point for a moment. They say it's legal, and yet they went to great pains to make sure that Hegseth wasn't the one who gave the order. So obviously, they're a little nervous about that point. Look, the legal terms are straightforward and, like you said (ph), interesting. I was on Rachel Maddow last night, and the textbook talking about illegal orders mentions an example of striking survivors on a sinking ship. OK? So the - it seems like it is against the law of war. I mean, people throw out the phrase war crime all the time. I mean, war is a hellish experience in which very difficult things happen and people have to make tough decisions. But it seems clear that, based on what happened here, if the facts are as described, this is a clear violation both of U.S. law about how to conduct yourself in a war and also international law.
And again, the other interesting thing about this - the whole operation - is this a war? You know, the Trump administration spends half their time saying no, which is why they haven't waited for congressional authorization or even followed the War Powers Resolution. This memo that's out there explaining the legal justification for this is fascinating because half of it says, this is why this is an armed conflict, why these narcoterrorist groups are such a threat. They're doing all these awful things. And the other half says, no, it's not a war. So therefore, we don't have to get permission from Congress.
FADEL: Well, if it's - if - OK. So coming back to the investigation or the look into this, are you going to have Secretary Hegseth and Admiral Bradley appear before the committee, and do you expect the White House to cooperate?
SMITH: I do not expect the White House to cooperate. And, yeah, we're going to push for all of that. I mean, one of the challenges here - there's a lot of classified information in this discussion. We're meeting with Admiral Bradley this week. It's going to be classified. We're trying to get a full committee hearing here next week - classified. I think there also ought to be a public hearing. But all up and down the chain of command...
FADEL: All right.
SMITH: ...We're going to try to get everybody we can to come in and tell us what happened.
FADEL: Representative Adam Smith is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. And we'll note that we invited a number of your Republican colleagues to discuss this. The offer still stands. Thank you for your time, Congressman.
SMITH: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. 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 NPR’s programming is the audio record.
