By John Q. Hosedrinker 
News of the U.S. military attack on a boat in the Caribbean has prompted investigations into the potential criminal liability of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and others involved. Several mechanisms exist for determining the facts and whether there was criminal activity, including congressional investigations, action by the Attorney General, and the Department of Defense’s inspector general. International courts also have the authority to investigate. Though political polarization and previous cases suggest these investigations may not be straightforward, the existing methods can be used to hold those responsible accountable.
Read the original article here
Pete Hegseth could be investigated for illegal orders by 5 different bodies – but none are likely to lead to charges. This is the unfortunately predictable situation we seem to be facing. The general consensus here is that while the potential for investigation exists, the odds of actual charges being filed are slim to none. It seems like the political landscape, and perhaps even the legal structures themselves, are designed to protect those in positions of power, making accountability a distant dream.
The core issue appears to be a systemic problem. Some suggest the investigations are almost performative, designed to create the illusion of action without any real consequences. It’s like the old adage, “whiskey under the bridge” – the incident fades away, and those responsible are left untouched. This lack of accountability not only undermines justice but also damages the United States’ reputation on the international stage, potentially eroding trust and credibility in international diplomacy.
International courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), are mentioned as potential avenues for investigation. However, the United States, like other powerful nations, often operates outside the jurisdiction of these bodies. The historical example of the Reagan administration’s actions in Nicaragua, where the U.S. disregarded a ruling by the International Court of Justice, highlights this tendency to prioritize national interests over international law. The possibility that sanctions could be levied against the US by other nations, as a consequence of any findings by the ICC, is also raised, but the ability of the US to weather such actions is also considered.
Another factor contributing to the lack of charges is the potential for a cascading effect. Bringing charges against Hegseth, or anyone involved in the alleged illegal orders, could open the floodgates for charges against other high-ranking officials involved in similar actions during the “War on Terror.” This would likely be resisted by those in power and could potentially lead to a complete reworking of the system.
The timing of investigations is also highlighted. The perception is that it takes an unreasonably long time for the relevant bodies to even start an investigation, further increasing the chance that the issue fades from public memory. This delay is seen as a deliberate tactic to allow the political winds to shift and the public’s attention to move on.
The possibility of a pardon is also considered. If charges were filed, the accused could potentially be pardoned, removing any chance of real consequences. This further diminishes the value of the investigations and reinforces the idea that those in power are above the law.
The overall sentiment is one of frustration and disillusionment. There’s a feeling that the system is rigged to protect those who are in positions of power, no matter what their actions. The phrase “drain the swamp” is sarcastically employed, with the observation that the “snakes” are simply being moved into more powerful positions, continuing the cycle of impunity.
There is a sense that the electorate will have forgotten about the matter by the time the next election rolls around, rendering any potential political consequences minimal. History is seen as rhyming, implying that we have seen these sorts of outcomes before. The analogy to a toddler ignoring a time-out chair and facing no consequences further emphasizes this feeling of a system that lacks effective checks and balances.
Ultimately, the consensus suggests that the investigations, despite their potential, are unlikely to result in charges. The systemic factors at play, including the protection of powerful individuals, the potential for pardons, and the delays inherent in the process, all contribute to this pessimistic outlook.