Celia Hatton

included a review of the boat's condition, the presence of drugs, the threat assessment that is said to have justified this continued military action.

And the members were able to ask questions about the timeline, the legality and the operational decisions that were made during this incident.

So are we closer to clearing up the confusion about what happened with this strike in September and who ordered it?

Well, that appears to have been the main purpose of the briefing.

The lawmakers heard from Admiral Frank Bradley, who explained his reasoning for ordering the second strike.

And he said that he acted within his authority, that he made the decision, not the Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

We know from an interview that Mr Hegseth gave a couple of days ago that he claims to have watched the first strike live, presumably by remote video.

But he said he didn't see the survivors and was informed afterwards that the admiral chose to sink the boat and eliminate the threat.

Can you tell us more about what Admiral Bradley said?

Did he give any reason for the second strike?

Admiral Bradley and the White House, indeed, say the strikes were lawful because the survivors were still considered a legitimate target.

So that gets to the crux of his reasoning.

But some lawmakers, particularly Democrats, were very concerned about the rules of engagement as they've been explained to them during this briefing.

So, Peter, what's the bigger picture then when it comes to future U.S.

strikes?

Not long ago, we heard about another U.S.

attack on a boat.

What are the details on that and what does it tell us?

Well, yes, the US military has conducted, they say, another of these deadly strikes on an alleged drug smuggling boat, killing four.

We don't have many more details on that just yet.