The military is facing mounting fear of repercussions for questioning the legality of actions, as evidenced by Admiral Holsey’s offer to resign after questioning the strikes. This comes amidst ongoing U.S. military involvement in what is perceived by some as an illegal war, potentially increasing the number of individuals seeking legal counsel. Military strikes on vessels linked to Venezuela may be triggering the Geneva Conventions, potentially violating the rights of civilians involved in mere criminality.
Read More
On September 2, U.S. military forces attacked a vessel, leaving two survivors clinging to the wreckage for roughly 45 minutes before a second strike was ordered by Adm. Frank Bradley, resulting in their deaths. Although the survivors were seen waving towards aircraft overhead, potentially signaling for help, Bradley claimed they still posed a threat. He justified the follow-up strikes by alleging the men could have been transporting drugs and would rejoin the fight. However, sources and experts have questioned the legality of these actions, highlighting that the men did not pose an imminent threat and that these strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings.
Read More
Senator Rand Paul has called for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to testify under oath regarding the second strike on an alleged drug boat. Paul also believes the video of the attack should be shown to the public. Representative Jim Himes expressed dismay after viewing the footage, calling the incident troubling, while Hegseth has defended the legality of the second strike, attributing the decision to Admiral Mitch Bradley. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials are reportedly concerned that the Trump administration is shifting blame, as highlighted by White House statements seemingly exonerating Bradley, potentially leading to legal consequences for Hegseth.
Read More
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited the presence of radios as justification for bombing two men in the Caribbean Sea, claiming they could have contacted cartels. However, lawmakers who viewed the video footage contradicted this account. Representative Jim Himes stated definitively that there was no radio, weaponry, or any other means of communication present. The only evidence found was the men clinging to debris.
Read More
A recently viewed video shown to senators depicts a US airstrike on a suspected drug smuggling boat, revealing two surviving, unarmed men clinging to wreckage before being killed in a subsequent attack. The video has sparked controversy as the US military has carried out 22 attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, with a death toll of at least 87 people. Legal experts and lawmakers have debated the legality of these strikes, particularly the killing of incapacitated survivors, as the US Department of Defense’s Law of War manual prohibits attacks on those who are incapacitated. The debate centers on whether these actions constitute war crimes given the circumstances of the attacks and whether the individuals are considered “combatants.”
Read More
Lawmakers were disturbed by the explanation provided regarding the justification for killing two incapacitated men, with the implication that they were still considered threats. The administration maintained that the men were still involved in drug trafficking, thus perpetuating the idea that they were engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. despite being shipwrecked. This rationale contradicts the laws of war, which generally prohibit killing those no longer actively participating in a conflict. The core argument is a dangerous extension of executive power, allowing for summary military execution of civilians in international waters.
Read More
Hegseth Asked Top Admiral to Resign After Months of Discord
The story of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Admiral Alvin Holsey is a stark illustration of the tensions brewing within the highest echelons of the U.S. military. The core issue revolves around a fundamental disagreement: whether to blindly follow orders or exercise professional judgment, especially when those orders raise legal and ethical questions. The narrative presented reveals a growing chasm between Hegseth’s approach to military command and Admiral Holsey’s commitment to upholding military standards, ultimately leading to the admiral’s premature departure.
Months of friction between Hegseth and Holsey marked the lead up to the admiral’s forced retirement.… Continue reading
In a resurfaced 2016 video, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated there should be “consequences” for carrying out unlawful orders. This clip has gained renewed attention as the Pentagon, now under Hegseth’s leadership, is investigating six Democratic lawmakers who urged service members not to follow illegal directives. The lawmakers’ video prompted accusations of “seditious behavior” from President Trump, while Hegseth himself criticized the Democrats’ message as “despicable, reckless, and false”. The controversy underscores the military’s obligation to obey lawful orders but refuse unlawful ones, as explicitly stated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Read More
In his book, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth describes instructing troops to ignore legal advice regarding the rules of engagement in Iraq, emphasizing a need to destroy threats without restrictions. He also criticized constraints placed on soldiers and expressed admiration for commanders who encouraged aggressive actions. This stance, along with his role in pardoning or supporting soldiers accused of war crimes, has drawn scrutiny, particularly in light of an incident where he allegedly ordered the killing of all survivors in a Caribbean drug boat incident. Experts like David Crane have criticized Hegseth’s views, emphasizing the importance of following the rules of engagement and the negative impact of such actions on military professionalism.
Read More
Fears grow inside military over illegal orders after Hegseth authorized follow-up boat strike. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the authorization of a follow-up boat strike by Hegseth has cast a long shadow over the military, sparking deep concerns about the potential for illegal orders and the consequences of blindly following them. The discussions surrounding this situation highlight a serious erosion of trust and a growing sense of unease within the ranks.
The core of the problem seems to be the very nature of the actions themselves. Striking against unarmed boats, regardless of suspicions of drug smuggling, is, at its face, problematic.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood