By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Responding to a video featuring six Democratic lawmakers urging service members to “refuse illegal orders” from former President Trump, Rep. Adam Smith stated he believes Trump has issued illegal military orders. Smith cited a specific instance, the order to blow up boats in the Caribbean without proper justification, as an example. He condemned the Department of War’s review into Sen. Mark Kelly’s participation in the video, deeming it a threat to free speech. While Smith expressed his views, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, also in the video, stated she was not aware of any illegal military orders from the former president.
Read the original article here
Washington Democrat says he believes Trump issued illegal orders to the military – it’s a statement that cuts right to the heart of some serious concerns about the former President’s actions. The core of this issue revolves around the idea that Donald Trump, while in office, may have directed the military to act in ways that violated the law. This isn’t just a casual observation; it’s a firmly held belief, voiced by a Representative from Washington state.
The heart of the matter seems to be specific military actions, most notably those involving the targeting of boats in the Caribbean. The assertion is that these actions, which involved destroying vessels, lacked proper justification. The argument against them seems to be that they were conducted without probable cause, without clear national security rationale, and without a formal declaration of war or armed conflict from Congress. From this perspective, these actions appear to be illegal, a clear overstep of authority.
The First Amendment is also a significant point here. The right to express an opinion, especially for elected officials, is vital in a democracy. A key argument being put forward is that these representatives shouldn’t face legal repercussions for voicing their beliefs, particularly when they involve questioning actions that seem to violate the law. It’s their job, they assert, to stand up for what they believe in.
This sentiment extends to broader concerns about the misuse of the military. There’s a belief that the military shouldn’t be used for extrajudicial actions, for instance, essentially acting as a law enforcement or hit squad. The suggestion is that such actions are a dangerous deviation from the military’s intended role and responsibilities.
The conversation goes beyond specific actions and delves into broader criticisms. One particularly strong view is that Trump’s actions, and by extension his administration, were bordering on something akin to a totalitarian government. This kind of rhetoric underscores a deeply held worry about the erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law.
One aspect that can’t be overlooked is the renaming of the “Department of Defense” to the “Department of War.” The claim is made that this change was itself illegal, as only Congress has the power to change the name of a federal department. The use of this “Department of War” terminology, especially in official communication, raises eyebrows and contributes to a sense of unease.
The discussion also raises questions about the military personnel who may have been involved in potentially illegal operations. There are queries about their criminal liability and whether there are any legal precedents for such situations. These are important questions, as they get to the heart of accountability and the potential consequences for those who follow unlawful orders.
The broader political landscape, of course, plays a role. There’s criticism aimed at media outlets and even certain legislators, accusing them of being too lenient or hesitant in their critiques of Trump. This perceived softness fuels a sense of frustration among those who believe the former president’s actions deserve more scrutiny.
The issue of taxation also arises, with some individuals expressing a moral objection to funding actions they consider illegal or immoral. The idea of refusing to pay federal taxes as a form of protest against these alleged actions is something to be aware of. This highlights how deeply some people feel about the alleged transgressions, as they are willing to take actions that carry legal risks in order to express their objection.
Overall, the core message is clear: that there are serious concerns that Donald Trump issued illegal orders to the military. There are multiple dimensions to the issue, encompassing specific military actions, broader concerns about the misuse of power, and questions about the rule of law.