So have all military orders been lawful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

Ooo, I see what you did there. Very clever.

So far, the review has not led to a recall, charges, or a court-martial. It is still just an administrative step that the Pentagon is allowed to take. Call it a temper tantrum if you like - but Secretary Hegseth has the authority. Sen. Kelly should have chosen his words more carefully, or better yet, declined to participate in the video because he's still subject to the UCMJ.

What about his words do you find illegal?

What I think doesn't matter. It's up to the Department of War and the UCMJ. You questioned the legitimacy of the action to investigate Sen. Kelly. It's legitimate. He can have his day in court.

So can all these people.

[Anonymous]

I guess we’ll find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do republicans believe that the orders in Mei Lai were legal? That the orders from
Hitler to mass murder Jews legal? Was blindingly following Pol Pot the right thing to do?

Is the legal defense “I was following orders” hold up in court for military personnel?

How does your conscience hold up when you slaughter innocent children and women because your commander and chief said so?

Hegseth's orders to kill everyone in boat sounds illegal to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

Ooo, I see what you did there. Very clever.

So far, the review has not led to a recall, charges, or a court-martial. It is still just an administrative step that the Pentagon is allowed to take. Call it a temper tantrum if you like - but Secretary Hegseth has the authority. Sen. Kelly should have chosen his words more carefully, or better yet, declined to participate in the video because he's still subject to the UCMJ.

What about his words do you find illegal?

What I think doesn't matter. It's up to the Department of War and the UCMJ. You questioned the legitimacy of the action to investigate Sen. Kelly. It's legitimate. He can have his day in court.

There's going to be no day in court. The Secretary of War Crimes significantly overplayed his hand, and that part of the story has disappeared from the media cycle. He needs to worry about himself, not Kelly.

[Anonymous]

Hegseth is a far, far right misogynist religious extremist who does not want women to have the right to vote. Earlier this year, he tweeted in support of his church leaders discussing repealing the 19th amendment.

He never should have been put in a position of power in the first placs

[Anonymous]

A presidential memo saying officers carrying out Caribbean boat strikes can’t be prosecuted is a confession the attacks are war crimes.

Virtually every lawyer across the political spectrum identifying them as blatant, unambiguous violations of the laws of armed combat is because they’re war crimes.

https://newrepublic.com/article/203219/trump-boat-bombings-secret-memo

[Anonymous]

Anyone who calls the Pentagon the "department of war" and Hegseth the "secretary of war" is too far gone to have a rational discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do republicans believe that the orders in Mei Lai were legal? That the orders from
Hitler to mass murder Jews legal? Was blindingly following Pol Pot the right thing to do?

Is the legal defense “I was following orders” hold up in court for military personnel?

How does your conscience hold up when you slaughter innocent children and women because your commander and chief said so?

Hegseth's orders to kill everyone in boat sounds illegal to me.

Hegseth should tread softly. He can be court martial for his actions. He’s only SECDEF for as long as Trump is around.

[Anonymous]

That video is looking less like a political mistake and more like a prescient warning. There will be consequences (not for trump, of course, thanks SC)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do republicans believe that the orders in Mei Lai were legal? That the orders from
Hitler to mass murder Jews legal? Was blindingly following Pol Pot the right thing to do?

Is the legal defense “I was following orders” hold up in court for military personnel?

How does your conscience hold up when you slaughter innocent children and women because your commander and chief said so?

Hegseth's orders to kill everyone in boat sounds illegal to me.

It is. And their claim that it was "self defense" is absolutely laughable. Once the boat was hit the first time, any possible threat was already neutralized. They are committing war crimes and any sailors involved are complicit. This is why Admiral Holsey quit, because he would not be a party to unlawful murders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

Ooo, I see what you did there. Very clever.

So far, the review has not led to a recall, charges, or a court-martial. It is still just an administrative step that the Pentagon is allowed to take. Call it a temper tantrum if you like - but Secretary Hegseth has the authority. Sen. Kelly should have chosen his words more carefully, or better yet, declined to participate in the video because he's still subject to the UCMJ.

What about his words do you find illegal?

What I think doesn't matter. It's up to the Department of War and the UCMJ. You questioned the legitimacy of the action to investigate Sen. Kelly. It's legitimate. He can have his day in court.

So can all these people.

How much clout do former JAGs have? Let’s hear from those who are active.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That video is looking less like a political mistake and more like a prescient warning. There will be consequences (not for trump, of course, thanks SC)

+1 Multiple of the members of Congress who filmed the video have said in interviews that they made it because they were receiving calls from active duty military asking them about this. The video was absolutely necessary, and seems prescient only because they had the facts before we did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

Ooo, I see what you did there. Very clever.

So far, the review has not led to a recall, charges, or a court-martial. It is still just an administrative step that the Pentagon is allowed to take. Call it a temper tantrum if you like - but Secretary Hegseth has the authority. Sen. Kelly should have chosen his words more carefully, or better yet, declined to participate in the video because he's still subject to the UCMJ.

What about his words do you find illegal?

What I think doesn't matter. It's up to the Department of War and the UCMJ. You questioned the legitimacy of the action to investigate Sen. Kelly. It's legitimate. He can have his day in court.

So can all these people.

How much clout do former JAGs have? Let’s hear from those who are active.

In February 2025, Hegseth fired the military JAGs, calling them potential "roadblocks" to Trump's orders.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5162069-pentagon-officers-fired/

[Anonymous]

Philip Bump:

it's wild but not surprising that last week the White House was leaning into "these seditious Democrats dared suggest that troops were receiving illegal orders!!!" and this week they are scrambling to figure out who to blame for issuing illegal orders.

[Anonymous]

Democrats are saying they will decide what is lawful and what is not lawful, so members of the military should just resist all Trump orders just in case.