GEOFF BENNETT: For more, we turn to# Democratic Congressman Adam Smith,## ranking member of the House# Armed Services Committee.

He## was among the members of Congress briefed# by Admiral Bradley and General Caine today.

Thanks for being with us.

REP.

ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Thanks for# having me.

Appreciate the chance.

GEOFF BENNETT: So let's start with# what you saw in that briefing today.## How would you describe the video of the# September 2 U.S.

strike on that boat?

REP.

ADAM SMITH: Well, it's disturbing to# me, because what we saw, we saw the whole## video from the moment that they identified# the boat to when they did the first strike.

And by the time of the second# strike, you have two survivors## with their shirts off on top of a capsized# boat, that the bow of the boat is above## water.

But there's not much above water.# And they're on top of that boat.

And that## was what the decision was to strike those two# people on that boat.

So it's very disturbing.

Now, the admiral offered an explanation for# why they felt that those two people on that## boat were still -- quote -- "in the fight" at# that point and legitimate targets.

But I have## serious questions about that conclusion.

And I# think we need to do a much deeper investigation.

GEOFF BENNETT: Did Admiral Bradley or# General Caine say anything about the legal## guidance they received from the uniformed# lawyers before ordering the second strike?

REP.

ADAM SMITH: Absolutely.

And there's two layers.. issue, and the problem with all of this is because# their definition of return to the fight was,## they considered it plausible that the# cocaine was still on that boat.

I find## that somewhat questionable as well.

It# was hit by a strike.

It was on fire,## visibly burning for a while, before the# fuel tank separated and then capsized.

Is it possible that there was still cocaine# underneath the part of the boat that was## underwater?

I suppose.

But there was no evidence# of that.

And, also, what does it mean that the## cocaine was still there in terms of these two# people still being a threat and in the fight?

Now, the broader definition is anyone shipping# cocaine in the direction of the United States,## because, keep in mind, they don't# even know that this cocaine was## coming to the U.S.

That makes# them a target for lethal force?

I mean, this is the death penalty for drug# dealing.

Do we want to give the president## of the United States the authority to# kill anyone he deems a drug dealer,## to make him judge, jury, and executioner with# no due process?

Are they really in a fight?

Look, I have worked with a lot of people who# served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And when they## went into a place, they were in the fight.

People# were shooting at them, trying to blow them up.## That was a definite risk.

We're talking about# two guys on a capsized boat, completely unarmed,## who may or may not still have had cocaine in# the boat that was sinking underneath them.

GEOFF BENNETT: Does what transpired# amount, in your view, to a war crime?

REP.

ADAM SMITH: I am not personally going to## make that conclusion.

I think# it's irresponsible to do that.

War crimes are determined by trials and by# thorough investigation.

So I want to have a## thorough investigation.

I will say this.

Based on# what I have seen, I am deeply concerned about the## legality of the strike.

I'm deeply concerned# about the legality of the entire operation.

And it needs a further investigation# for a possible war crime, absolutely.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what guidance then# would you give to the men and women## in uniform who are under orders to# carry out operations like these?

REP.

ADAM SMITH: Well, at the risk of having# the Justice Department investigate me, and I## did not serve in the military, so I'm not at risk# of being called back and court-martialed, I would## give the same guidance that Senator Mark Kelly# and the other five members gave in that video.

And it's in the UCMJ.

You have a responsibility# to make sure that the orders that you are## given are lawful.

Don't forget that# responsibility.

It's really important,## particularly when you have a secretary of# defense who has contempt for the law on## every level.

His attitude is, the law is an# impediment to him doing what he has to do.

That's not the way the United States of America# is supposed to work.

And if you're working for## this guy, you better be extra careful, because# you know, A, SecDef doesn't care about the law,## and, B, he certainly doesn't have your back,# as was witnessed by the fact that instantly## he said, yes, wasn't my decision, it was his# decision.

I fully support the order he gave.

So it's a very, very dangerous time# to be a service member right now,## given the way the secretary# of defense is behaving.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the time that remains, I want# to switch our focus to the Defense Department## inspector general report concluding that Secretary# Hegseth put U.S.

personnel at risk by sharing## details of planned strikes on Houthi leaders# over the unclassified messaging app Signal.

He told investigators that the messages# weren't classified because they did not## include target names or locations.

How# do you respond to that explanation?

REP.

ADAM SMITH: No, first of all,# that's completely wrong.

That's not## what happened.

He absolutely did say,# this is what we're hitting.

This is## when we're hitting it.

This is who is# hitting it.

That's what he released.

Look, it's not complicated, all right?

Anybody# who's ever had any interaction with classified## information would instantly look at what Secretary# Hegseth did here and say, yes, wrong, shouldn't## have done that.

So it's bad that he did it.

It's# worse that he doesn't see anything wrong with it.

He gets a report that says that he# unnecessarily put service members at## risk, and his conclusion is, oh, completely# exonerated.

Nothing to see here.

No problem.

He's not even going to fix what he did.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what happens now?

President# Trump is standing by Hegseth.

The Republican## chair of the House Intelligence Committee says# he's confident in Hegseth's leadership.

So what,## in your view, does meaningful# accountability look like?

REP.

ADAM SMITH: Yes.

It puts# us in a very difficult position.

And, look, this is a problem with the entire# Trump administration in a variety of different## ways.

President Trump and Secretary# Hegseth have made it perfectly clear## the law doesn't apply to them.

So how do you# use the United States government to enforce## the law with a president and A secretary# of defense who don't believe in the law?

What we're going to do on our part is, we're# going to continue to press for congressional## oversight.

Key to this is, what will the# Republican majority in the House and the## Senate do?

And we want a public hearing.

We want# a public discussion of, what is the justification## for this mission?

What was the justification# for this particular strike on September 2?

So what I'm going to do and a lot of# us in Congress are going to do is,## we're going to keep pushing for that# oversight and for that accountability.

GEOFF BENNETT: Congressman Adam Smith, the top# Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee,## thanks again for your time this evening.

REP.

ADAM SMITH: Thanks for giving me the chance.

GEOFF BENNETT: And the "News Hour" has# reached out to Republican members of the## relevant committees, and we hope# to have them on the program soon.