WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 (Xinhua) -- A growing bipartisan pressure in Congress is mounting on U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to disclose a video of a controversial air raid on a vessel suspected of drug trafficking off the coast of Venezuela.
The survivors, clinging to the boat wreckage in the raid on Sept. 2, were killed in a follow-up strike following the initial attack on the vessel. The incident has drawn growing outrage from legal experts and members of Congress, who said the killing of unarmed civilians breaches the laws of war.
The fallout unfolds against the backdrop of U.S. President Donald Trump's vow to take military action, if necessary, against all nations that distribute illegal drugs to the United States, a policy accompanied by a significant U.S. military buildup near Venezuela.
MOUNTING PRESSURE
On Friday, congressional Democrats sent a letter to the Pentagon, asking for the full video to be released to lawmakers before the end of December.
"We also urge you to expedite the public release of the video, taking into account appropriate precautions to protect sources and methods, so that the American people can judge for themselves the legality and necessity of their government engaging in such activities that potentially put our men and women in uniform at risk," it read.
The letter came on the heels of numerous Republicans' calls for the video release.
Earlier this month, GOP Senator Thom Tillis demanded the video's release. Senator Tom Cotton, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he would not oppose the release, but added that there was nothing "remarkable" in the footage.
This followed Republican Senator Rand Paul's public demand for Hegseth to testify before Congress regarding the orders given for the attack. Paul also urged the video to be released.
Meanwhile, a coalition of advocacy groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, has become involved.
The groups have sued for the immediate release of the Justice Department's memo that gives the legal green light for the deadly strikes. They contended the public has the right to know what legal argument was used to justify the attacks.
Hegseth has told lawmakers that the video footage is under review to assess potential national security implications before any release.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
U.S. forces have launched over 20 attacks on alleged drug-transporting vessels in the Caribbean Sea since September, resulting in the deaths of more than 80 individuals, according to reports.
Some legal experts said the killing of survivors could be a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which set the rules for international armed conflict and forbid the targeting of wounded participants. Some deemed that killing survivors could even be interpreted as war crimes.
Critics labelled the U.S. strikes as extrajudicial, arguing that the use of military force was not needed and that non-lethal options were available to prevent drugs from being transported to the United States.
The Trump administration claimed that the alleged transportation of drugs via these vessels to the United States justified military force.
The administration maintained that its actions complied with the international rules and norms of armed engagement. Within this framework, the boats and their cargo were considered targets, and those on board were considered combatants subject to deadly force.
Clay Ramsay, a researcher at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, told Xinhua there are two different contexts in which the case is viewed.
The first way is to accept the Trump administration's view that the United States is at war with a non-state actor.
However, if the United States were involved in a war, it would be against the laws of war to kill those manning a sunken ship or other craft while they are floating in the water, Ramsay said.
The second way to look at it is to regard this as dealing with criminals. "If we take that view, then these were extrajudicial killings," Ramsay said.
Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Michael O'Hanlon told Xinhua: "In my judgment, but it is judgment ... Neither the strikes nor the second strike seems legal, or ethical, or smart, to me." ■