On one side, the Trump administration is sinking small boats that it claims, without evidence, are smuggling drugs — and according to the Washington Post, Pete Hegseth, the self-styled Secretary of War, has personally ordered at least one follow-up strike to kill the survivors. A working group of former JAGs, that is, members of the military’s legal branch, issued a statement declaring that it
unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both.
…
I don’t know about y’all, but the words “kill the survivors” makes my blood run cold.
What could/should have been the response of the crew members to that order at the time it was given to them? I’m not familiar with the specific details of how the whole episode might have looked or how it might have unfolded, but I’m guessing some of you would know or at least be able to speculate knowledgeably. If those ordered to shoot refused to do so right then, what would likely have happened to them at the time and later? I’m guessing someone in the crew would have carried out the order anyway. Would the one refusing have been put under arrest at the time and when they landed, be met by military police and locked up?
This youtube video just crossed my feed. It touches on some of the questions you ask, and I would like to know as well.
It is alleged that the Admiral in command received an oral order from Hegseth to finish the survivors, and he carried it out. I hope the admiral gets a chance to explain his actions in some formal legal setting. Whether to a congressional committee or a court martial.
I did think of the My Lai massacre when I started this thread. I was in college in 1968 and remember when news of that became public.
I’m guessing that it’s easy enough for someone back at HQ to say “yeah, sure, you must not obey illegal orders,” but if you’re one person there on the scene, not so easy at all.
Now Petey is saying he never gave the order to kill the survivors. So Congress is going to investigate. Whatever.
The big difference is that My Lai - or just about any other incident of ‘just following orders’ - carried with it the ‘fog of war’ to blur lines and make horrific acts seem justifiable. There is no war with Venezuela. Nobody was shooting at US forces to create exigent circumstances. There was just the Tough Guy issuing tough guy orders.
I’m not going to say it’s easy to refuse to follow illegal orders but there are some very obviously illegal orders. There are no doubt lots of potentially illegal orders that might fall into a gray area but a person following a patently illegal order risks being prosecuted.
And whatever people may have thought about that prospect two or five or twelve months ago - I’m guessing a lot of them see it very differently today.
The big problem with the current situation is, the people on the ground are faced with the question, “Do I ruin my life today, or three* years from now?”
It’s clear that anyone in the chain of command who refused to accept an order, no matter how obviously illegal it was, will be targeted by Trump et al, and charged with every crime they can imagine, and there’s no guarantee that the courts martial will be fair. Trump will be putting pressure on everyone to convict, or be prosecuted themselves. Maybe after they’re gone, the new administration will retroactively exonerate you, but in the meantime, you’re still in prison, and your family is suffering, maybe losing their house and stuff like that.
But, conversely, if you accept the order, and carry out an atrocity, you’re setting yourself up to be prosecuted if and when Trump et al. are finally history.
I believe in practical terms, you may well face a courts-martial as the military philosophy is based on a foundation of maintaining control over the ranks. This doesn’t mean a conviction is eminent, but you had better have your UCMJ ducks in a row with a reasonable explanation during the proceedings.
Yes, this is a problem I have with everyone running around shouting “He did a war crime! Prosecute him for a war crime!”
I’m not sure why people say this, except they seem to believe that “war crimes” are easier to prosecute and are more severely punished. But that’s really the opposite of the truth if we’re talking about bringing someone to the Hague to answer for violating the laws of land warfare.
And a war crimes prosecution isn’t necessary here, either. It does bear similarity to the My Lai caise, in that William Calley wasn’t convicted of a “war crime” except in the colloquial sense. He was convicted of premeditated murder under jurisdiction of the UCMJ. Straighforward charge, clear jurisdiction. That’s the standard that should be applied in the Venezuela case, imo.
If an order was given to kill shipwreck survivors, then the entire chain of command is guilty of premeditated murder, from the individuals who authorized the order to the individual who pulled the trigger. The first thing that should happen is the trigger-man should be hauled before Congress to answer for his crimes. He’ll name his superior, and the roll-up will get easier as it approaches risk-averse careerists. Hegseth will be implicated, the only real question will be is whether he tries to implicate Trump.
I don’t believe it’s that people think it will be easier to prosecute anyone for violating the rules of warfare - I think it’s that people don’t believe anyone will be prosecuted for murder under the UCMJ or any other US law. Trump doesn’t control the International Criminal Court and any pardons he issues will be irrelevant there.
Trump won’t be president forever but his pardons will last forever so if Trump issues a pardon, no future administration can prosecute. I’m not saying that there will be any consequences for Trump or Hegseth , just that it’s unlikely that the people who say " He did a war crime" think war crimes are generally easier to prosecute than murder. They may only think it’s “easier” in this particular case.After all, a pardon from Trump won’t keep a future US administration from arresting someone based on an ICC warrant.
In one of the other threads a DoD document is quoted as explicitly saying that finishing off the survivors of a destroyed vessel is unlawful. But yeah, it’s a kind of a no-win situation for those on the line. Institutionally you are de facto expected to accept that whether you follow your orders, or your conscience and honor, you will just suck it up when it comes to consequences.
The US isn’t a member of the ICC. No US citizen will ever be prosecuted by the ICC for acts in international waters, and probably not for any acts committed anywhere else either. For that to happen, the matter would have to be referred by the UN Security council, and guess who has a permanent seat with veto power on the UNSC.
It has to be UCMJ or nothing. Or I guess theoretically the US could bring federal charges as well, but the clearest path to prosecution is charging as premeditated murder under the UCMJ. People need to stop blathering on about “war crimes”, it’s not a loophole to an authority higher than Trump.
This happened some times in WWII, a few times with the Japanese military and apparently with Germany as well, although I’m not that familiar with the war in Europe.
The times it happened with the Japanese military, there wasn’t any official repercussions and usually someone else did the dirty work either then or later.
At some point, you’re going to have to decide to ignore that. Pardons as a Presidential power might have made sense when you were expecting the President to be a decent and sober person, who honestly intended to uphold the law as best they could. But now, Trump has shown that it’s a ridiculous power when it’s in the hands of a person who will encourage others to commit crimes on his behalf, with the understanding that Trump will then absolve them of all culpability for said crimes.
You need to make it clear, starting now, that anyone who commits crimes on Trump’s behalf will be prosecuted once you have the power to do so, and pardons be damned. Even if this means that future Presidents have to lose the power of the pardon, it needs to be done. The abuses of this power are too great to risk.
But directly refusing such an order- unless very blatant is dangerous. Claim you misunderstood it, or didnt get it, or get it in writing or ask their commanding officer. If you refuse directly, in a case like sinking drug boats on the high seas- you will be in trouble.
Political suicide, and a pardon is forever, it is in the Constitution. That doesnt mean a politico cant openly disagree or ask pointed questions.
I’m also of the opinion that you should trash the constitution and start over. Your system has failed, and duct taping over the cracks isn’t going to work this tine.
