Not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about national security and classified documents that the DoD IG has found that the SecDef did share sensitive classified information in the infamous Signal chat.
No previous SecDef has been so unqualified as Hegseth. It's only Trump 2.0's apparent desire to limit turnover in his second administration that's keeping this guy in his position. He actually is liked by many of the very junior enlisted (I'd say they know no better), but he's clearly lost the respect and trust of the officers, especially senior officers.
Reports are coming out about Admiral Holsey's retirement two years early. He's the SOUTHCOM Commander and I said here almost three months ago that I had heard it was over the legality of the boat strikes and reports are confirming that. This is also why SOUTHCOM weren't conducting these strikes the SOUTHCOM's AOR. Holsey's JAG office advised him that the orders to strike these boats amounted to execution of suspected criminals and would be unlawful. Hegseth (and presumably the President) wanted to conduct these strikes, so they got someone in the WH OLC, I believe, or DoJ, to write an opinion they liked which now at least gives some legal cover for the initial strikes, although there is robust debate in the Pentagon about their legality still. The follow-on strikes can't be covered by any legal opinion if they were conducted to kill helpless shipwrecked survivors. About the only defense I can think of is that they got back onto the boat and the boat was still operational then it's basically the same as the first strike, if you think that strike is legal. If the boat is an inoperative sinking hunk of wreckage, then it's not lawful to kill them. Admiral Bradley is a well-respected and accomplished warrior, and I hope what really happened was justifiable.
If you don't do what Trump or his cronies say, then it is forced resignation.
If you do what they say, then you might be the fall guy when it comes to light.
It sucks voters put the military in this crappy situation. Hopefully they remember their oath is to the constitution and not to the dick in the white house.
If orders were given in the Chain of command from CinC to operation commander to kill any survivors from the initial attack, is that a crime? Yes or no?
To the extent you're asking for a legal conclusion from a bunch of laymen and lawyers who don't practice in this area, I'd say the "Yes or no" and "on the record" request doesn't make sense.
Without researching it, if it happened, probably. Trump might have immunity, though, or there might be defenses or other relevant factors I'm ignorant of. So my gut says "yes," but my brain says "I don't know."
In general, I'd hope the U.S. as the preeminent power in the world wouldn't do this, though. I'd prefer we lead by example.
Not to derail the topic, but if you are fighting an enemy (state, organization or otherwise) that does not abide by the Geneva Convention, how much does that handicap you in terms of achieving objectives? For example, in Vietnam, the US absolutely could have won the war (nukes, higher usage of carpet bombing, napalm, etc.). A military that is restrained is mathematically less likely to be successful and more likely to incur its own casualties.
I'm not suggesting that the Venezuela drug cartels or smugglers are a major military threat to the U.S. (at least currently), but I'm simply asking the question of when the rules should apply and when they shouldn't.
If orders were given in the Chain of command from CinC to operation commander to kill any survivors from the initial attack, is that a crime? Yes or no?
If orders were given in the Chain of command from CinC to operation commander to kill any survivors from the initial attack, is that a crime? Yes or no?
Pentagon hasn’t released it. The one they initially used to brief Congress was edited to leave out the second attack. Unedited video should be released along with OLC’s legal justification for these boat strikes.
@stollcpa What’s your answer if the article is accurate?
Lets say, for the sake of argument) that they are 100+ miles off shore. Is it more ethical FOR YOU, that they are allowed to slowly die over the next several days? (Sharks, dehydration, starvation.....)
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
You, nor anyone else, has challenged that Venezuela sends few drugs to the US and almost no fentanyl. They don't produce fentanyl and their cocaine goes to warlords in West Africa for Europe. After all the discussions on opposing Russia, you really back blowing up ships to block drugs for Europe?
A lot of Fentanyl comes from China, much of the rest from Mexico. Are we sinking them? If not, why Venezuela.
You, nor anyone else, has challenged that Venezuela sends few drugs to the US and almost no fentanyl. They don't produce fentanyl and their cocaine goes to warlords in West Africa for Europe. After all the discussions on opposing Russia, you really back blowing up ships to block drugs for Europe?
A lot of Fentanyl comes from China, much of the rest from Mexico. Are we sinking them? If not, why Venezuela.
You might want to rethink your position when Trump has you arguing for the drug smugglers.
