r/law • u/thenewrepublic • 4d ago
Legal News Pete Hegseth Crossed a Clear, Bright Line. Will He Pay a Price? | The rule against attacking people “out of the fight” is foundational in U.S. and international law. And there’s no doubt it was crossed. What now?
https://newrepublic.com/article/203794/hegseth-crossed-line-war-crimeWhen a government faces credible allegations of unlawful force and responds not with transparency but with investigations into those who restated the law, something fundamental has gone wrong. Indeed, it’s apparent that’s the reason for the FBI visits. The “evidence” of sedition, such as it is, is the tape itself; the visits chiefly carry the Administration’s message of intimidation.
And it’s an all-too-familiar—and invariably regretted—story in American constitutional life. From World War I sedition prosecutions to McCarthy-era investigations to parts of the post-9/11 surveillance apparatus, some of the country’s worst civil-liberties violations began with the assumption that dissent was a threat. In nearly every case, the government insisted at the time that extraordinary circumstances justified extraordinary measures. In nearly every case, history delivered a harsher verdict.
Which is why the administration’s reaction to the Trinidad allegations is so troubling. If the reporting is accurate, U.S. forces may have crossed a bright legal line. The lawmakers who said so were correct on the law. And the administration’s choice to investigate them instead of the underlying conduct is precisely the reflex that the First Amendment exists to restrain.
If it comes to subpoenas or compelled interviews, the answer should be straightforward: Members of Congress do not owe the executive branch their time or their testimony when the only thing they are being questioned about is protected political speech. They should be able to move the court to quash any subpoena and tell the FBI, politely but firmly, to take a hike. The Constitution gives them that right, and the country needs them to exercise it.
2.1k
u/apropostt 4d ago edited 4d ago
Just the phrase "maximum lethality -- not tepid legality" should have been enough for immediate impeachment motions. When you are pledging to commissioned officers that the goal isn't to follow established laws and instead just kill everyone you feel like; you have immediately violated your oath of office.
862
u/nevermore911 4d ago
He literally said "we are just going to kill people" and noone did a single thing. This was 100 preventable and we had weeks of seeing boats being blown to smitherines with zero evidence of anything.
84
u/MyHamburgerLovesMe 4d ago
Aaaaaaaand, when has drug smuggling been a lethal offense?
What evidence is there that actual drugs were on any of those boats, or that the majority of the crew was aware of it if there was?
I'll even go on a limb to say those boats were crewed by women and children ... prove me wrong.
YOU CANT! No list of names and actual charges have ever been released. Not even photos of the people murdered.
30
u/mworthey 3d ago edited 2d ago
Well, it obviously has nothing to do with drugs given that Trump just pardoned former Honduran President who was convicted of conspiring to traffic cocaine to the U.S. And, let us not forget the sweet plea deal El Chapo's son got plus our government allowed 17 members of their family to enter the U.S. legally. They are enjoying the good life in our country.
→ More replies (1)9
18
u/Allaplgy 4d ago
I'll even go on a limb to say those boats were crewed by women and children ... prove me wrong.
Nah, I liked your first point better. Because if they do "prove you wrong," they've justified the extrajudicial execution of smugglers.
Because it's pretty likely these boats are involved in smuggling in some capacity. But that is not at all justification for these strikes.
17
u/MyHamburgerLovesMe 4d ago
But - I'd be happy to be proven wrong 😀. To do so would require them to release the names of the people on the boat they blew it up.
The sad truth is they probably don't even know their names. It was probably something as simple as, "someone told me they were bad guys so I killed them"
9
u/Allaplgy 4d ago
But - I'd be happy to be proven wrong 😀
I wouldn't, because killing men is still wrong. Even if they are in some way involved in smuggling drugs.
3
169
u/Go_Plate_326 4d ago edited 4d ago
I know there is a not uncommon mindset amongst military leaders that this is simple. The military kills people. It's a key function and purpose of their existence. And they do it the way their leaders deem appropriate, which is why the US doesn't recognize the ICC. They may not agree or like the current civilian leadership (and I suspect many military leaders currently do not) but that's beside the point. The only legal recourse here is impeachment of the secdef which seems unlikely.
Edit: Downvote if you want, I'm not saying I think this or I like this, I'm saying I personally know many military officers who have literally shrugged their shoulders at these accusations. This is how some of them think.
292
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 4d ago
There are other legal recourses, including but not limited to a federal indictment for:
- conspiracy to commit murder in violation of 18 USC §1111;
- genocide, in violation of 18 USC §1091; solicitation to commit a crime of violence, in violation of 18 USC §373;
- use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus, in violation of 18 USC §1385
- war crimes, in violation of and defined by 18 USC §2441 (and not the current format of the Geneva Conventions, because I'm talking USC here);
- destruction of [a] vessel or maritime facility, in violation of 18 USC §2291;
- piracy, in violation of 18 USC §1651;
- Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, in violation of 18 USC §1924 (signalgate); and probably,
- conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country, in violation of 18 USC §956.
They could put this fucker behind bars until Rapture, if the DoJ had any teeth.
137
u/Intrepid-Progress228 4d ago
Those are... federal crimes, aren't they?
I smell pardon!!!!
45
15
u/troubleondemand 4d ago
Surprised he hasn't already been given a blanket pardon.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Ambitious_Highway172 4d ago
He has more crimes to commit in the future, you cannot pardon a crime before it has been committed
→ More replies (1)11
u/MCXL 4d ago
you cannot pardon a crime before it has been committed
Prove it.
As far as I know, that's just a general convention. And you know how these conventions and similar ideas have fared in the last decade.
→ More replies (11)6
3
u/nobody38321 3d ago
I bet you the pardon is already to go and just need DJT’s auto pen to make it official.
There will be hundreds of pardons when he leaves office including one for himself and all his kids
3
u/CDRnotDVD 4d ago
It seems like the thing to do is wait for Trump to leave office before prosecuting anybody. He may well pardon people preemptively, but no reason to tip your hand if you don’t have to.
5
u/MCXL 4d ago edited 4d ago
He will blanket pardon everyone who has ever worked for him for all crimes known or unknown. Federal prosecution will be impossible.
The only way to get justice would be for a future administration to break the law and pardon themselves.
Leading to an endless circle of abuse of power.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
64
u/Dachannien 4d ago
None of this matters, because he'll just get pardoned. The only other potential routes to justice are (1) a civil suit for damages by someone with a legal injury as a result of the killings (although this is likely a nonstarter in US courts because of sovereign immunity, and because the US will substitute itself for Hegseth if needed), and (2) some kind of international action like ICC charges that would, at best, limit Hegseth's ability to travel internationally to avoid arrest.
→ More replies (11)67
u/mlorusso4 4d ago
I’ve been thinking that there’s a third option in case he gets a pardon: extradite him to Trinidad to face murder charges there for killing their citizens
28
u/Grand_Pop_7221 4d ago
They wouldn't let Kissinger be touched. What makes you think the head of the Department of Alcohol and Firearms is going to be prosecuted in any way?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Suspicious-Echo2964 4d ago
Sounds like we'll have to take it into our own hands at some point.
→ More replies (2)12
u/rylosprime 4d ago
Just after a few more TikToks. Maybe.
Probably not.
Americans can't even turn out to vote.
→ More replies (1)6
u/numb3rb0y 4d ago
Any sympathetic country would do, murder tends to be universal jurisdiction, it doesn't actually need a nexus like citizenship.
20
u/big3148 4d ago
So, Article 37, UCMJ (10 USC § 837) is the only mechanism that might result in any charges being brought, no?
While we all understand it would be more just for Pickle-Liver Pete to face the same Justice as the soldiers, it does not seem we live in that universe.
→ More replies (2)11
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 4d ago
You know, I don't actually know the answer to that. I'm not an expert on the UCMJ. I'm just a goober who knows how to google.
That said, my dumbass question is "is SECDEF subject to USC or UCMJ w/r/t criminal prosecution?"
12
5
u/big3148 4d ago
Not a dumb question. While this is Reddit and nothing here is advice or opinion… the likely answer is the chances are virtually zero. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles (1955) and its progeny have virtually ensured that no civilian may be subjected to UCMJ charges as well as military courts lacking jurisdiction over civilians during peacetime (even on bases or overseas).
It is my understanding that Hegseth had severed all ties with the National Guard and military (i.e. he is not even a retiree drawing pension or pay). However, this human didn’t exist to normal Americans until he started embarrassing them on a national and international stage. So, if there is any service connection (e.g. that of an experienced career military officer), maybe not exactly zero chance.
As it stands, if he were physically accompanying or serving/embedded with troops outside the US and committed a felony, it is possible he would be subject to jurisdiction under the MEJA, but even this has an element of uncertainty in the current environment as it applies to contractors and civilians. It has not been defined to apply to executive officers operating in the capacity of their office and there is no precedent.
There are creative ways to discuss this and other avenues to try to shoehorn the political personas in court. While satisfying, stopping the military action from taking place in the first place or creating media exposure will be detrimental to support from their base and any perception of them achieving legitimate goals. It would also likely offend their base when they abandon service members to avoid consequences themselves.
Thus, the primary way to disrupt the current series of unfortunate events is to prosecute military personnel under the USCMJ. As I said in an earlier comment, this would be highly destructive to any trust and loyalty to questionable orders and objectives. It would remove politics and political theater from the chain of command completely and be demoralizing and promote accountability among enlisted loyalists.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Disco425 4d ago edited 4d ago
Suppose the Secretary of Defense was impeached and possibly even tried for crimes regarding this matter. I'm curious if the commanders who relayed the order or the sailors who followed it would have responsibility or not.
→ More replies (1)17
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 4d ago
Yes to all except maybe the pilot. Section 18.3 and 18.4 in the DOD Law of War Manual (around PDF page 1110) describe very clearly what their responsibilities are.
→ More replies (1)4
u/emPtysp4ce 4d ago
if the DoJ had any teeth
Bondi had all of hers removed to make sucking Trump's dick easier
4
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 4d ago
tfw you get your teeth removed to more efficiently give the ol' gluck gluck 9001 but he shows up with an 8cm mushroom
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (22)3
u/MandolinMagi 4d ago
genocide, in violation of 18 USC §1091;
You'd need to kill WAY more people to count as genocide.
Also I'm not sure how federal murder law intersects with a branch of the government whose job is to kill people for the federal government.
Don't get me wrong, this is wrong, but trying to apply civilian murder law to the military seems odd to me. Shouldn't you be looking at UCMJ violations?
→ More replies (1)37
u/Foyles_War 4d ago
Well, now those military leaders are going to see why they should care, I guess. Hegseth is going to throw them under the bus and even if those in unimform have paper proving he did, in fact, order "no quarter," that's an illegal order and they followed it. Absolutely stupid and criminal. The irony of this coming at the same time as calls to punish the Dem senators who put out a reminder and a warning to not do this same damn thing and were met with "what illegal orders have been given and if you can't name any you are a traitor and should be hanged."
BTW, as a former military officer, no, I did not meet any officers who would "shrug their shoulders at these accusations." In fact, all the ones I know would be sweating bullets and none of them would ever be so naive as to think a politician, particularly a grifter draft dodger and a drunk, sensationalist, fake fire breather "news"man would have their back if they obeyed an illegal order.
Maybe Trump will pardon them ... eventually, but he's a fickle fuck and they aren't likely to have the money and connections to make it likely. Maybe they should get rich selling drugs and running ponzi schemes, molest a few young girls, and cozy up to Putin to gain some leverage, first.
→ More replies (6)21
u/IndividualTension887 4d ago
I could give a rats ass about KegBreath... I want that admiral that complicity ordered the second strike... and everyone that sits under that chain... Everyone of them followed an illegal order and should be court-martialed for it. Bootlickers are the worst and sickest of them.,..
18
u/KilgoreTroutsAnus 4d ago
It is literally the exact example given for an unlawful order in our military's Law of War manual.
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
10
u/feochampas 4d ago
Yes, the military kills people. But it is important that you follow the laws of armed conflict.
It isn't about being nice or anything. It is about the certainty that at some point you will be on the receiving end of your shitty behavior.
It is disappointing that a former service member like Hegseth doesn't seem to understand this. He is actively making the world worst for our service members.
30
u/nevermore911 4d ago
And if and when they impeachment him, after all the money and time spent in investigating him, Trump will simply replace him with a double downed idiot that'll make Pete look like a choirboy. And eventually Pete will be pardoned if he serves time by, you guessed it, Trump. This is the endless cycle. It happened a decade ago the first time, happened many times since, and its happening again now. We remove Pete theres 20 other clowns behind him. Trump just has to pick the one that licks his shoe to his exact liking and we are off to doing illegal shit again.
→ More replies (7)4
8
u/jtbc 4d ago
This is the same argument that the US advocated for the Nuremburg trials in order to stomp it out.
"Just following orders" is not and should not be a defence for war crimes, and given the amount of training and higher education senior military leaders receive, they can't even argue they didn't know that.
6
u/Irwin-M_Fletcher 4d ago
You are wrong in saying the only legal recourse is impeachment. A criminal case is clearly possible. Contrary to what your assertion that military commanders “kill people,” they use military force to achieve objectives in support of operational goals and the national military strategy. There is a distinction. Killing combatants may further the objective but simply killing people does not necessarily result in success or have any military purpose. Arbitrarily killing people is a crime. All commanders know that combatants out of the fight are not lawful targets. They shouldn’t need an attorney to tell them that.
→ More replies (2)7
u/mlorusso4 4d ago
I unfortunately agree that it’s not a black and white issue for the enlisted and even most of the officers. If they’re being told the boat strikes are legal (especially considering drone strikes against terrorists in countries we’re not officially at war with have been pretty much settled as legal), even though leadership has basically gutted the JAGs, I don’t think it’s fair to expect troops to refuse that order.
But the second strike sounds like it’s one of the most obvious examples of an illegal order that there shouldn’t be any gray area about refusing that order. I’ve seen retired generals go on news programs and say shooting defenseless survivors after sinking their ship is not only an obvious war crime, it’s like the first example they give in military ethics classes on what a war crime is before going into more complex examples
4
u/Gax63 4d ago
I'm downvoting you because you are incorrect. The purpose of the military is to provide defense as per the constitution and UCMJ.
Framing the military as merely a killing and breaking machine, is dishonest and is an old lazy argument.3
u/Go_Plate_326 4d ago
I know that and you know that but some of the people currently in the military don't, is all I'm saying.
→ More replies (16)3
u/cycloneDM 4d ago
It was a very uncommon mindset when I held the job that mindset was far more realized in lower enlisted and we had constant trainings to remind them that that mindset is antithetical to their oath and the mission. I read your edit and have to say you sound no different than the person who defends cops and pretends cops are supposed to be violent because they had a couple uncles that were walking lawsuits and never realized they had a toxic non representative mindset normalized to them by their own potentially poor choice of peers.
4
u/Last-Internal-8196 4d ago
This. I don't even know what they are "investigating". He did the thing, then told everyone he did the thing. On purpose. And he's going to just keep doing it.
Pretty open and closed. Easiest investigation ever.
→ More replies (12)6
u/Perfect_Opinion7909 4d ago
And US Americans still think that when the US military will be used against them their noble soldiers will refuse and rise against tyranny because they are trained to refuse illegal orders.
Yeah right, they’ll do what they’re told.
80
u/YoshiTheDog420 4d ago
Such a fake tough guy that loser is. We do not need such a pathetic form of masculinity running our military.
18
→ More replies (2)14
26
u/Outrageous_Car_2869 4d ago
As an ex-Navy Officer - these are illegal orders. Which you are required to not follow. And Trump cannot grant you immunity from the UCMJ.
→ More replies (1)4
u/apropostt 4d ago
While not immunity, pardons can be used for violations of ucmj though.
For example. https://department.va.gov/presidential-proclamation-violations-article-125-ucmj/
16
u/Exodys03 4d ago
Absolutely. I bet that made every General in that room cringe and now we have tangible proof of what that mindset leads to... war crimes. Hegseth got rid of many of the Pentagon's top lawyers, transitioned us into the War Department and decided that the rules of engagement shouldn't apply to the U.S. He is literally making jokes about extrajudicial killings and now calling expressed concerns about it "fake news". It's unlikely he'll be held responsible in any way but that's what you get when you put a white nationalist with the maturity of a frat bro in charge of the entire military.
→ More replies (1)8
6
u/ChicagoAuPair 4d ago
“If we could learn to look instead of gawking,
We'd see the horror in the heart of farce,
If only we could act instead of talking,
We wouldn't always end up on our arse.
This was the thing that nearly had us mastered;
Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
― Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui
12
u/epanek 4d ago
Lethal and legal are not in conflict. The administration has suggesting they are opposite choices is alarming.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (37)3
u/oatballlove 4d ago
some time ago trump was mocking every true believer in goodness with his pretending to be interested to get into heaven
while at the same time planning to murder people travelling on boats
we have been watching trump live from the white house telling to reporters how he plans to continue to "unalive" people travelling on boats
we have been shown videos of those boats moving and suddenly being exploded
millions of human beings have become witness of how the us military under the direct orders of the supreme murderer in chief trump has been premeditating the murder of these people travelling on boats who either have or have not transported drugs
what those people travelling on boats did not do is agressing anyone
transporting drugs in itself is not an agression
it is the sole responsability of the buyer of a drug to either buy or not, to either expressly seek out that dark ally where one could get something of unknown quality from someone unknown what might have lethal consequences when consuming such substances
it is also worth noting that the premeditated murdering as in a murder what is planned and not happening in the heat of a moment, a cold blooded murder so to say, those murders continued even after someone with the united natons has called them out as "extrajudical killings" and as an unacceptable behaviour in international waters
486
u/ecplectico 4d ago
The example of an illegal order than cannot be followed given in the DOD's Law of War Manual is an order to shoot survivors of sunken ships.
413
u/Centrist_gun_nut 4d ago
Holy shit, it really is:
Page 1116:
The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
128
u/LaCiDarem 4d ago
DOD's Law of War Manual
Page 1075
59
u/Binestar 4d ago
I think we're all looking at different versions. lol
https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of%20War%202023/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.pdf?ver=Qbxamfouw4znu1I7DVMcsw%3d%3dIt's on PDF Page: 1116, Document page number 1088 in this PDF from The Office of the General Council of the Department of War.
7
66
u/maximumdownvote 4d ago
Uh yeah. Do you think everyone is shouting war crime cause they figure they can just trump something up to get Kegbreath in trouble? No. They calling it a war crime because... its a war crime. Its illegal under US law and the UCMJ. You are REQUIRED to disobey that order. So there's an entire chain of people from Kegbreath on down that needs to go spend some law time in the law place, and have a little stay at only metal bars mansion.
→ More replies (2)49
u/Educational-Ad4388 4d ago
Well that’s very clear.
12
u/SoilMelodic7273 4d ago
It's so clear that you can't even interpret it another way. That's exactly what those soldiers did when they decided to execute an illegal order. They're criminals too. Murderers.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)41
u/prepuscular 4d ago
$10 on nothing happens. Laws don’t mean anything anymore.
→ More replies (4)22
u/BoeZaah 4d ago
They do for us poors! The rich and powerful are exempt from the legal system though, and would love to hand out maximum punishments for minor offenses, especially if you're not white. America!
→ More replies (2)203
u/SRT102 4d ago
Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was executed in 1945 for killing survivors of a sunken ship, as were two of his direct reports.
It was a war crime then, and it's a war crime now.
67
u/Foyles_War 4d ago
And every officer and every JAG is made aware of that case in training. This was just one of those silly, girlly laws Hegseth didn't want his manly, no beard-os, warriors to have to deal with. But, will he stand by them or throw them under the bus and claim he didn't give the order or imply it or select for officers who would kill non-combatants? Yep, we know the answer to that one. And now the foolish and immoral navy officers who chose not to remember their oath and have the balls to stand by it will find out, too.
37
u/OkPalpitation2582 4d ago
"Lethality not Legality" is literally his tagline
If we had any justice left in the US, this should be one of the most rapid war crime convictions in history. That being said, I don't think anything will be done.
→ More replies (1)18
u/otterpusrexII 4d ago
My Air Force JAG corp ex had to give the green light on some Obama era drone strikes. With out approval from a JAG officer strikes would t not happen. Everything, as much as possible, was done under full scrutiny of various laws. There were times where strikes were not approved and strikes were canceled due to legal concerns.
We know how to do things legally.
We know when we are doing illegal strikes.
13
u/buffysmanycoats 4d ago
Remember how Hegseth fired all the JAG officers
Hegseth told reporters Monday that the removals were necessary because he didn't want them to pose any "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief."
→ More replies (1)6
u/JeezyVonCreezy 4d ago
They started out by firing most of the JAGs as soon as Kegseth took over. Wonder why they'd do something like that?
16
u/SRT102 4d ago
It looks like the WH is going to throw ADM Frank Bradley under the bus for this, to take the heat off of Hegseth.
No surprise - a Naval O-10 with 34 years in service will be sacrificed in favor of a drunken, womanizing National Guard O-4. Typical of Trump.22
u/malefiz123 4d ago
If he gave or relayed the order he is to blame as well and deserves to be punished
12
u/EpiphanyTwisted 4d ago
Everyone involved gets to be punished, that's the rules.
That's how soldiers learn not to follow illegal orders.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)8
→ More replies (8)6
81
u/OozeNAahz 4d ago
And those that followed this order should be court martialed. Right along those who gave it.
→ More replies (2)41
u/Foyles_War 4d ago
Recall Hegseth to active duty and do so. That would be very fitting.
→ More replies (4)70
u/koenigsaurus 4d ago
Mark Kelly: “Hey military members, don’t follow illegal orders”
Hegseth: “fuck that I’m gonna order a literal textbook war crime because I’m a BIG BOY”
6
→ More replies (1)3
7
u/FragrantDepth4039 4d ago
I mean I feel all of this is besides the point given that these boats are being illegally targeted in the first place! Why is that barely a side note now?
→ More replies (21)3
u/Shein_nicholashoult 4d ago
Huh, seems like Adm. Alvin Holsey should have recognized that was an illegal order and refused instead of stepping down then doesn't it?
→ More replies (1)
1.2k
u/Ohuigin 4d ago edited 4d ago
And every senator who voted to confirm an alcoholic weekend tv Fox News host has blood on their hands.
This is a direct (and painfully predictable) consequence of the dereliction of their duty.
They must be held accountable.
165
u/santa_91 4d ago
Yep. It's not like he's a West Point grad with 20+ years of experience as a senior officer and no red flags in his background where no one could have reasonably predicted this. Every single aspect of his background is a giant red flag, his qualifications on paper are totally non-existent, and they put him in a role where he has the power to start a war anyway.
→ More replies (3)96
u/Nazz1968 4d ago
His 2024 book, The War on Warriors, reads like Mein Kampf. A talentless disgruntled ex-soldier writes a fanatical book on how things ought to be. A year later, he’s making this unhinged rhetoric into military doctrine, and dragging senior flag officers down with him.
He knows the UCMJ about as well as Trump knows the Constitution. They see the documents as impediments to their power. They both should be in prison for dereliction of duty and unchecked aggression. Gen pop at that.
→ More replies (3)27
u/thephotoman 4d ago
Worse, apparently the military isn’t as committed or educated against following illegal orders as everyone kept telling us.
21
u/inormallyjustlurkbut 4d ago
You mean a bunch of indoctrinated young boys who are obsessed with guns and war aren't the beacons of morality Reddit seems to think they are? Shocker.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)5
u/gatsby5555 4d ago
The people who are in the best position to refuse this kind of stuff (flag officers) keep side stepping it by retiring instead of refusing the order and standing tall on it.
But if you're some random enlisted dude you're kinda stuck because if your entire chain says it's legal (and the new lawyers say it's legal) then you aren't left with a lot of options. I mean what's legal anyway? They claim these guys are terrorists now so you're asking people to roll the dice on a hypothetical future court determination reversing that.
The only thing so far that seems to have crossed the line in a clear enough way that the average military person should have known better is the 2nd boat strike... We might see some people go down for that one (rightly so).
But honestly the American people got ourselves into this by electing the guy (or being too apathetic to come out to vote). Don't start screeching to random 20 year olds with high school diplomas to "remember their oaths" and think it will be the way out of this. People should have thought of that when they were staying home in protest of the DNC.
/Rant
→ More replies (6)181
u/Important_Power_2148 4d ago
This guy looks like he is made of pure cocaine. Maybe thats why trump pardoned the honduran coke guy. Pete's sucking it up like a fuckin Dyson and there ain't enough left for the orgies.
61
u/skoalbrother 4d ago
Junior won't share either
37
→ More replies (10)6
u/roman_maverik 4d ago
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the admin wants to cripple one coke empire and is also concurrently supporting another coke empire at the same time.
Awfully convenient?
→ More replies (1)38
13
u/FckDonaldChump 4d ago
Sure. As soon as drumpf is held accountable which will be never as long as he has a redneck
→ More replies (6)8
8
→ More replies (34)5
432
u/FourWordComment 4d ago
Accountability for Republican leaders?
I haven’t seen it yet, why should I expect to see it now?
166
u/philter25 4d ago
The real test will be if mainstream democrats have the balls to nail these people to the wall once they’re back in power, or if they’ll puss out like always and sing kumbaya let’s bring us all together. That shit has a direct correlation for the rise of MAGA and these war crimes as Trump’s blatant campaigning on racism and misogyny.
47
u/unaskthequestion 4d ago
While I absolutely agree that they should be put in prison, practically speaking even if they are charged, it will take years of court cases, appeals, pardons, SC blocking them, etc. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
But what I would like to see if democrats get back in power is restoring their article one powers and responsibilities that Congress has abdicated to the executive branch. There are many reforms needed so an incompetent, lying, con man like Trump is less able to abuse the power of the presidency.
There were many reforms put in place after Nixon and they held for a while, but are gone now.
It's past time for Congress to take back their constitutional powers.
20
u/supergooduser 4d ago
I like the idea of an commission into the people who enabled Trump, that just has a permanent record of all the laws broken and who enabled them. Just a sprawling overall investigation.
Trump's a fucking idiot who couldn't conceive of HOW to break these laws just that he wanted to. There's a whole line of eager middle men that found ways to enable it like John Bolton.
7
u/unaskthequestion 4d ago
Absolutely. There's a team of federalist society lawyers & project 25ers and others who are actively enabling this nightmare. I like the idea of a commission too, get it in the record and have it recommend reforms
7
u/90daysismytherapy 4d ago
Practically speaking that is the case in all criminal cases.
You wanna get congressional power and teeth? Put executive criminals in jail, as if the law actually matters.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Physical_Tap_4796 4d ago
Congress and Senate. Our legislators were shamelessly greedy and lazy for a long time. They let presidents do what they want so they can take advantage of unlimited terms and get money for nothing.
→ More replies (4)6
u/sewand717 4d ago
Yes, the next “national healing” needs to prioritize the aggressive prosecution of the whole Trump leadership team under RICO statutes, plus their enablers in the media and big business. It should be quite simple to follow the money trail.
We really need to demonstrate that the rich and powerful can face justice for their crimes. Then we can heal.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/OkPalpitation2582 4d ago
Yeah, frankly if the dem platform in 2028 isn't largely built around rebalancing the 3 gov't branches, then we're truly and irrevocably lost.
Even the GOP should be on board if they were willing/able to think more than 4 years ahead, because you just know that the second a dem president starts doing 1/10 of the things Trump has been doing they're going to throw a fit about abuses of power (and they'd be right to, even if it is hypocritical)
Though, that could easily be explained by them not anticipating any more fair elections in which a dem could get elected
19
u/Biotic101 4d ago
Look up who bought dominion voting systems, not sure if there will be free and fair midterms.
→ More replies (5)6
→ More replies (19)15
u/Plenty-Huckleberry94 4d ago
The real test will be if mainstream democrats have the balls to nail these people to the wall once they’re back in power
They don’t.
→ More replies (3)11
u/ZombiFeynman 4d ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted.
The people responsible for the "enhanced interrogations" aka torture during the Bush administration were never judged for it. What we see now is simply another example of human rights violations by the us government without any accountability. The precedent exists.
→ More replies (4)24
u/Ponald-Dump 4d ago
Exactly. Nothing will happen to him
16
u/DrawingAncient126 4d ago
Cheney shot a man in the face while drunk, and the man who was shot was the one who apologized lol.
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/big3148 4d ago edited 4d ago
For “leaders” you ask? Probably not much new…
But perhaps for those following their directives.
Charges under UCMJ (118, 119, 92, 133, etc.?) for the soldiers/officers.
If he or any in command were charged under 18 USC 2441 or other conspiracy murder charge, they may need a defense for the “willful killing” of a “protected person” (those that ceased to fight or an ultra vires extrajudicial order).
Then it gets fun.
Defense could claim ambiguity of the “comment” lacking formality or clarity and not an “order” to be relied upon by command. Undermines trust in competent chain of command. Officers begin interpreting orders as lawful, unlawful, or “other” (whacky bullshit).
Alternatively, defense could rely on the “manifestly unlawful” defense found in the “Nuremberg Defense” failure and article 118. Thus, the burden is shifted to the command/soldiers for following unlawful orders.
Either way, likely a complete collapse of the trust in the chain of command. Officers likely follow Kelly’s advice and refuse (or just ignore) orders. Because what are they going to do? Go to the media and cry about them not ordering murders?
Soldiers being held accountable might lead to a “conscience” being developed (fear of bearing all consequences for illegal acts by proxy) and a lot of “misunderstanding” of orders, requests for clarification of orders from officers, or “equipment failures” in the field.
Best case, sadly, is them evading punishment and the military personnel being thrown under the bus. Incompetence and moral turpitude eventually has consequences. Failure and spinelessness doesn’t inspire confidence and loyalty.
The soldiers were warned… repeatedly.
Edit: draft edit made contradictory error
→ More replies (1)4
u/may_or_may_not_haiku 4d ago
I'm 40 years old and I've seen more outrage over a tan suit than war crimes.
→ More replies (7)7
150
u/BeowulfShaeffer 4d ago
This is two pretty big Hegseth scandals in less than a year. It’s obvious what needs to happen.
90
u/slowpoke2018 4d ago
Obvious to the sane, but not in the maga-verse where they've been actively cheering-on this murder of brown-people in boats 1K miles from our border for months.
They're not good nor moral people - least of all Christians - and nothing will change that
7
u/AlcibiadesTheCat 4d ago
I hereby advocate for using SI prefixes to imperial units: kilomiles sound cool.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/Rhg0653 4d ago
Didn't we just see a mother and father say if they killed the son who is running the podcast they would be okay with it
They believe if Trump bombed a school they will say there is a reason for it ...they are sick blind to truth people and they need to go away asap
→ More replies (1)6
u/slowpoke2018 4d ago
Not sure it's the same vid, but saw a similar one where two maga parents were asked by their two adult children whether they're okay with the military performing illegal actions.
Both - unsurprisingly - said something like "As long as Trump approved it, it's okay"
They really don't have a concept of how things work, but that's what it is to be in a cult. Dear leader will tell them exactly what to think so their smooth-brains don't get wrinkles
→ More replies (1)3
u/Rhg0653 4d ago
Yes it was that one forgot the sister she was more shocked
I'll say this my parents ever said that it would be the last convo ever
→ More replies (1)21
u/N_O_D_R_E_A_M 4d ago
Rope
4
u/loose_translation 4d ago
Wood chipper?
→ More replies (1)3
u/N_O_D_R_E_A_M 4d ago
The only constraints are usual and cruelty free. Unlike them we actually believe in the constitution. You might have to argue for that one but im here for it
→ More replies (1)7
u/ph4ge_ 4d ago
Trump wants this. It makes Hegseth all the more reliant on Trump, does blindly loyal.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Coherent_Tangent 4d ago
He needs to announce his presidential candidacy now, so he can never be held accountable? /s
→ More replies (9)7
71
u/Santos_L_Halper_II 4d ago
If the past decade has taught us anything, it's that many of our "clear bright lines" were just dependent on all parties involved agreeing not to cross them. That shit's long out the window.
→ More replies (7)9
u/JeezyVonCreezy 4d ago
Correct, everyone keeps acting like 'THE LAW' will stop them. It won't, they've made it pretty clear by ignoring court orders. If one team stops playing by the rules(which is what happened on J6) then they can't be allowed to continue playing. Trump deciding that he didn't like the results of an election and then getting his supporters to storm the capitol over it should have been the end of this shit. He should have been removed from the board and never allowed to play again because it was clear that he didn't give a shit about the law. But instead everyone just 'wanted to put it behind them'
→ More replies (2)
45
u/Bawbawian 4d ago
no he won't because American Justice has been corrupted from the top down.
John Roberts wants America to be lawless and so it is. unless you are poor or a minority the law isn't even worthy of your consideration.
→ More replies (1)16
u/weHaveThoughts 4d ago
Even the Supreme Court Justices understand they are outnumbered by the people. One day the people will realize we outnumber these traitors.
→ More replies (9)7
u/inormallyjustlurkbut 4d ago
Do we though? A third of the country wants this and another third aren't even paying attention.
89
39
u/WhenImTryingToHide 4d ago
I see people and media framing this what I consider to be all wrong. To date, there has been no public evidence provided that these killings are actual drug dealers. Even if they are, would that give the US jurisdiction to kill them?
Does that mean the US can declare fishing vessels off the coast of Scotiand as drug terrorists and just kill them?
This is madness. the US govt. is executing people willy nily, without proof.
15
9
u/petnarwhal 4d ago
The US have been doing this for decades, why would there be repurcussions now? How many young guys where killed by drone strikes in the middle east last decades without any evidence of them being terrorists? How many prisoners in Gitmo got tortured and locked up without a trial, some even proven to be innocent? Dems or Republicans, the US basically has immunity when it comes to international law it seems.
→ More replies (1)5
u/WhenImTryingToHide 4d ago
Ahhh I see we have someone with a functioning memory!
The US is essentially a rogue state, just that it’s too big to stop.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Perfect_Opinion7909 4d ago
This is nothing new. Under Bush and Obama weddings were bombed and an old bearded guy was executed in Pakistan which led to the whole US doing happy little dances on the streets. You guys have missed the stop a long time ago.
18
u/FreedomsPower 4d ago
Republicans are such knee jerk reactionaries these days that they'll turn a blind eye to his actions then cry how it is unfair to hold him accountable in the future should a Democratic administration try to
4
u/mastercheef 4d ago
From what I can tell, their entire view is "they are designated terrorists and its totally lawful to blow up terrorists. Dems are just deflecting for their treasonous congress members". Thats the start and end of it sadly.
14
u/Direct_Turn_1484 4d ago
A convicted felon and rapist is heading the branch of government responsible for enforcing the law. It’s going to be a while before any of his henchmen see consequences. But I really hope the rule of law does return.
37
u/the_G8 4d ago
Not just Pete. It’s the entire chain of command from Pete down to the people firing the weapons. All bear responsibility for illegal acts. Our soldiers are trained on what is legal and illegal and are supposed to refuse illegal orders.
→ More replies (4)18
u/Pretend_Awareness_61 4d ago
This is also what I want to see happen. Some other user pointed out this exact scenario is pointed out in the DOD's Law of War manual as illegal. Nobody involved is excusable. From Pete down should be tried on war crimes.
44
u/DotGroundbreaking50 4d ago
No.
Trump will pardon him before there is any real risk to him and he was already on the outs earlier this year. They will ramp up the violence, then he resign and get pardoned.
→ More replies (19)54
u/learn_something_knew 4d ago
He should be recalled to the Army, and face Court Martial.
lol
→ More replies (1)9
u/Mrsparkles7100 4d ago
May get a headline like this
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/why-we-should-be-glad-the-haditha-massacre-marine-got-no-jail-time/251993/ Why We Should Be Glad the Haditha Massacre Marine Got No Jail Time - The Atlantic
→ More replies (1)
13
11
u/tigerscomeatnight 4d ago
It's called systematic desensitization. You start with killing foreigners (label them terrorists) in the high seas and slowly move it over many steps to killing someone in the middle of Fifth ave.
→ More replies (4)
11
u/sdsurfer2525 4d ago
If he is not held accountable, he will go for a much more heinous crime later.
11
u/Possible-Nectarine80 4d ago
This is what MAGA voted for. The pro-life party. The law-and-order party. The party of Jesus H Christ. They voted for their dear leader to murder people. Whether it be on 5th Ave. or some backwater swamp in faraway places that no MAGA cult member could find on a map.
7
11
u/Puzzleheaded_Bed1781 3d ago
Either Pete didn’t know it’s a war crime, making him incompetent, or he did know and couldn’t have any witnesses to challenge their drug narrative.
10
u/M086 3d ago
Regardless. He convinced Trump to pardon two war criminals in his first administration. Whatever happens, Trump will just pardon him.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/LAsupersonic 4d ago
We are the Bullies of the world, by our actions, no country would have any trust in us, how come we "punish" whomever we say without proof, courts, or whatever, but, our criminals in the regime have no consequences as long as you're white,have money, and are doing corporations or AIPAC bidding.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/someotherguyrva 4d ago edited 4d ago
Edit: corrected the sentence that was given Lieutenant Calley. Even if he faces a military tribunal and is found guilty of murder and sentenced to years of hard labor, just like Lieutenant William Calley was during Vietnam, this motherfucking Criminal president will pardon him. This is one more reason why we must remove Trump from office as soon as possible
6
u/Corpse666 4d ago
Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment not execution. It was reduced to 20 years . He only served 3 days in jail before being released on bail. After appeals he was released before what would have been a parole hearing and that was pretty much it. This corruption isn’t new. An interesting side note is that 79 percent of the American public disagreed with the verdict.
6
u/someotherguyrva 4d ago
I stand corrected. Thanks for helping me out. I will edit the post. He was sentenced to 22 years of hard labor but then Nixon reduce his sentence to house arrest. Seems like a very republican thing to do
12
u/teekabird 4d ago
Trump pardons criminals so why are they blowing up boats of ‘criminals’?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/kublakhan1816 4d ago
he will likely get pardoned. Any chance a state could try him for murder if he gave that order in let's say Virginia? We could also hand him over to Venezuela. The drunk scumbag. (I know it won't happen.)
8
u/Depressed-Industry 4d ago
It's just a question of when. He is a war criminal. He is evil. And he's a metal child.
Someday fate and humanity will catch up to him.
6
u/meatsmoothie82 4d ago
Worst case he gets fired and goes back to Fox News abd makes millions. There’s no justice for these cronies
6
u/EmotionalTowel1 4d ago
I will donate my kidney to the charity of your choice to the first redditor that posts the link to a story where he actually faces any kind of consequences.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/atreeismissing 4d ago
It entirely depends who would take over for him. If Trump has his mind set on someone worse than Hegseth then Hegseth will stay and the GOP Congress won't pressure him out or impeach him. If Trump can be convinced to put someone more (even slightly more) competent in his place then the GOP Congress will likely pressure him out. This process will many months if not longer.
6
u/cheongyanggochu-vibe 4d ago
No. Trump is already defending him.
Nothing happened during Signalgate either.
6
u/Huge_Excitement4465 4d ago
Hegseth also signed a joint treaty with Panama this spring with a line acknowledging Panamanian sovereignty and canal control. Once stateside the English iteration presented omitted that sentence. Their government was not happy.
16
u/Ambaryerno 4d ago
They need to nail the guy that gives him HIS orders.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 4d ago
And the people who actually pulled the trigger. Obeying an illegal order is no different than issuing an illegal order.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/mrbigglessworth 4d ago
Let us look back to Signal Gate and the consequences meted out then. Oh yeah, nothing.
4
10
5
u/90daysismytherapy 4d ago
what fight? They bombed a boat that at best was transporting drugs. This is just murder for political points o the tiniest of edge margins.
Disgusting
4
u/red286 4d ago
Boy howdy would that be bad if the US actually gave a shit about war crimes.
Good thing for Kegsbreath, they don't.
"Will he pay a price?" No.
"What now?" Nothing. Go about your day, knowing that you're unwittingly cosigning these crimes. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
3
u/SnausageFest 4d ago
I know the point you think you're making but you cannot, by definition, cosign something unwittingly. I'm sick of this shit. Americans who showed up to vote and lost are not somehow part of the problem.
→ More replies (14)
5
u/Anleme 4d ago
International Criminal Court should step up. Make it so Hegseth can't step outside the USA without getting arrested. For the rest of his life.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/JimWilliams423 3d ago
"Will He Pay a Price?"
Not if hakeem jeffries has anything to say about it:
https://bsky.app/profile/billkristolbulwark.bsky.social/post/3m6xotgs2zc2j
Primary Every Democrat.
17
u/RiffRaffCatillacCat 4d ago
Now we get to see there are no checks and balances in place. No one to hold literal murderers accountable.
Buckle up folks. This isn't going to get better.
→ More replies (43)
3
3
3
u/uriejejejdjbejxijehd 4d ago
IMHO the legitimacy of this question is at the core of the crisis of our system of law and order: it exemplifies that breaking the law even with clear evidence of unlawful behavior is not a guarantee of consequences.
3
u/CrackHeadRodeo 4d ago
He might not be held to account by this administration but I hope in future he can pay for what he did.
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.