Rachel Abrams

We'll be right back.

Charlie, before the break, you told us about these congressional calls for investigation.

What might that look like if it happened?

And what power does Congress actually have here?

Such as?

I just want to understand what these investigations could even amount to.

So

hypothetically, if Congress determines that the military broke the law, what then?

What about that DOJ memo that we were talking about, though?

Like, if the military broke the law, but they didn't go outside of the bounds of what that memo authorized, is anybody vulnerable to any consequences?

I just want to pause here because what you're saying is kind of remarkable.

I mean, you cannot write a contract, for instance, and have two parties sign it that breaks the law and say, well, we have a contract.

What you are saying is that if the DOJ writes a memo and says that something is lawful, that protects anybody carrying out orders within the bounds of that memo, even if, by any other analysis, those actions are determined to be illegal.

Just the fact that that memo exists, it sounds like, protects people from prosecution, right?

Right.

Right.

Basically, if the intent was to kill the survivors of that first strike, it arguably would be outside the bounds of that memo and outside the bounds of what is considered legal warfare.

So therefore, the people who launched that strike potentially could be prosecuted.

And I should note that we are not a party to the International Criminal Court.

Charlie, our conversation today was prompted by, as we discussed, more scrutiny about the second strike on that first boat and whether that violates the rules of armed conflict.