The CDC "had a contact tracing team ready to go...but had NOT been asked to mobilize."
Dr Conley:
"The White House medical unit, in conjunction with the collaboration with CDC and local state health departments, are conducting all contact tracing per CDC guidelines."
2. WaPo also casts doubt on Dr. Conley's claim that the White House has engaged "local state health departments" in contact tracing.
WaPost: "Officials in Minnesota, Ohio and New Jersey, where Trump held events in recent days, said they haven’t heard from the White House."
National Security Advisor O'Brien on #FacetheNation tells a different story than Dr. Conley on contact tracing.
O'Brien does not say White House has engaged CDC in answer to @margbrennan.
So the significant question remains: Why has the WH not engaged the CDC???
5. Addendum-2
In contradiction of Dr. Conley’s false claim that CDC was involved, here’s more confirmation the White House is controlling contact tracing and not involving CDC experts who are best equipped to handle this vital task.
USG has a new explanation on why they (now admittedly) intentionally killed 2 shipwrecked men. It does not pass the laws-of-war smell test
Worse for Hegseth, NYT: "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved contingency plans for what to do if an initial strike left survivors."
🧵
2/ The Hegseth-approved contingency plan:
US military could try to kill shipwrecked survivors if "they took what the United States deemed to be a hostile action, like communicating with suspected cartel members."
3/ First it's absurd on its face that communicating to be RESCUED is a hostile act.
That's the definition of being shipwrecked and helpless.
The whole point of a legal prohibition on killing people who are shipwrecked is that they must be rescued or left to be rescued instead.
"Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck. The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack ... ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions."
reporting by @AlexHortonTX @nakashimae
2/ "Killing any of the men in the boats 'amounts to murder,' said Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign."
3/ "Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat’s occupants if they were no longer able to fight 'would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime,' said Huntley."
Hard for USGs to claim ‘mistake of law’ or ‘advice of counsel’ – when they’re firing lawyers who wouldn't sign off on the strikes.
WaPo's new revelations on firing/removal:
CIA General Counsel
NSC Legal Adviser
CIA Mission Center’s lawyer
🧵
2/ CIA Acting General Counsel, career lawyer, "was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force."
What happened next?
CIA Deputy Director Ellis took over as acting GC and still held his policy position. He then approved the ops.
3/ The National Security Counsel's Legal Adviser Paul Ney (who earlier served loyally as Trump 1.0 Pentagon General Counsel) "had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes."
Boat strikes put U.S. service members in legal jeopardy:
"Some junior officers have asked military lawyers, known as judge advocates general or JAGs, for written sign-off before taking part in strikes .... It does not appear that such memos were furnished."
2/ "Career military and civilian lawyers in the Defense Department and lawyers at other agencies who might otherwise be involved in the deliberations have left government or been excluded from the discussions."
3/ "Lawyers at the NSC, State Department, Justice Department and the Pentagon earlier this year questioned the legal basis for military strikes on cartels without authorization from Congress, and for a while were able to forestall action."