Transcript
Ryan Reynolds (0:00)
Indiana University is proving how higher education can create solutions with industry. We're working side by side with industry partners to fuel economic growth that powers a future ready workforce. Explore IU's impact at iu.edu impact.
Senator Rand Paul (0:19)
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio news We spoke.
Interviewer/Host (0:25)
With Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee and also serves on the Foreign and Relations Committee, tried to pursue some of these questions. We discussed with Wendy, asked him about the legality of the Pentagon's actions in Venezuela and whether he thinks they amount to a prelude to war.
Senator Rand Paul (0:42)
I'm very fearful that these boat strikes and the positioning of our ships and our troops right off the coast of Venezuela is a prelude to war. I think that there is a real question of legality under the military justice, under the code of military justice, it says that when someone has been incapacitated or shipwrecked or they're clinging to wreckage of a boat, that they're out of combat and they're no longer subject to be killed. And so there is a real question, who gave the order and why would they give the order to kill someone who is out of combat? Now, over the weekend, the Secretary of Defense was saying, well, I don't know anything about it. I don't know anything about a second attack. But today he, when he was interviewed, he said, well, yes, I left the room for a while, the second attack occurred, and I learned about it when he came back. But what was he telling us this weekend? He didn't know anything about a second attack and he never authorized it. But now that it's come to light, he says, oh, I didn't do it. Somebody else did it. The admiral did it. So they're all pin and blame on the military guy. But I'm one who tends to give a lot of leeway to the military guy and not so much leeway to the person who gave him the orders. These orders came from the Secretary of Defense. And ultimately he's going to have to accept responsibility. But to my mind, there's a question about whether or not killing people in the first place, who you have no proof that they're armed. You have presented no proof that they're carrying drugs and that you simply killed them. I think that's outrageous. But now, not only do we kill them, our government is following up by killing them when they're wounded and stranded and of no threat whatsoever, which is, according to our own laws, illegal.
Interviewer/Host (2:21)
Well, you've illustrated that carefully, Senator. It's Admiral Frank Bradley we're talking about. He's been named by the administration. I don't know if you think it's appropriate that his name is made public before he testifies before the Armed Services Committee on Thursday. But I guess the question now is raised where, where does the buck stop? Is it with the admiral, the defense secretary, or the commander in chief?