SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Pete Hegseth is under increasing fire for a double-tap strike, first reported by The Intercept in early September, in which the U.S. military killed two survivors of the Trump administration’s initial boat strike in the Caribbean on September 2.

The Washington Post recently reported that Hegseth personally ordered the follow-up attack, giving a spoken order “to kill everybody.” Multiple military legal experts, lawmakers, and now confidential sources within the government who spoke with The Intercept say Hegseth’s actions could result in the entire chain of command being investigated for a war crime or outright murder.

“Those directly involved in the strike could be charged with murder under the UCMJ or federal law,” said Todd Huntley, a former Staff Judge Advocate who served as a legal adviser on Joint Special Operations task forces conducting drone strikes in Afghanistan and elsewhere, using shorthand for the Uniform Code of Military Justice. “This is about as clear of a case being patently illegal that subordinates would probably not be able to successfully use a following-orders defense.”

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 148 points 11 months ago (6 children)

This is actually the example they use of an illegal order in the DOD manual.

Page 1117 18.3.2.1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23892053-dod-law-of-war-manual-june-2015-updated-july-2023/

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    good. prison for all of them. genocidal nazis all of them. from the leader to the guy who pushed the button.

    ILLEGAL ORDERS MUST BE IGNORED.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 11 months ago

    Must not could

  • source
  • [+] 198 points 11 months ago (37 children)
  • [–] 74 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Fairly sure the pardons are already filled out and signed preemptively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 11 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 51 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 45 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    with fascists, every accusation is an admission

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 11 months ago

    with fascists, every accusation is an admission

    Once again, A LITTLE LOUDER FOR THE DOLTS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

    When dealing with fascists and Republicans - they are the same but Republicans have less scruples and more money -

    "EVERY ACCUSATION IS AN ADMISSION."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    It’s fucking comical how many Americans seem to think that the collapse of their entire legal system is just a blip and there’s a “normal” to go back to.

    It’s a bit like going to see a magician- if you catch a glimpse of how the trick is done, the spell is broken. There’s no going back. Everyone is now fully aware that accountability only exists because of shared suspension of disbelief that it might not. A new administration doesn’t fix this. Your constitution and legislation has been fully exposed as lacking enforcement measures. There isn’t any coming back from that, regardless of who’s in the big chair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    It's already been collapsed for years though. Normal people don't even get trials anymore. We get outrageously high bail amounts and plea-bargains (forced confessions, that's what they are) so we will spend 2 years in prison instead of 5 awaiting trial.

    Want to prove your innocence even if it means spending years in pretrial jail? Guess what? They'll end up dismissing the charges a week before your trial starts because they don't think they'll get a conviction. You're not officially acquitted so the prosecutor's success rate stays high AND you still were imprisoned for years so it's a win-win for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -31 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    Even before the USA was kaput, double tapping became typical US strategy under the Obama administration, which makes me even more confident that nobody will face any consequences for this. To try Trump they'd have to try Obama.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    To try Trump they'd have to try Obama.

    Ok, and?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I really don't understand why people (GOPers mainly, it seems) trot this line out every time there's the "threat" of a Repub being (gasp) held accountable for something...

    We don't fucking CARE! GOOD! Prosecute the criminals! It doesn't matter what side they're on politically!

    Some of us don't hang our hat on individual cults of personality and just want the rules applied equally all the way across. Why is this so difficult to understand?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    For some people, their entire world view revolves around "there must be in-groups to protect and out-groups to bind". That's it. Everything else is a polite fiction on top of that.

    These people are, generally, bad people. Like, a child reading about them in a book would point out that they're not good.

    Many conservatives adhere to this world view.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    That's not how the US establishment rolls. Both sides will protect their man and that will be it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Yes, both sides are in fact bad but that's not really the point I'm making here. Please work on your reading comprehension.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    "reading comprehension" is the standard excuse for those whose MOs have accurately been assessed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I've seen this sentiment a lot lately. It's just a very bad argument.

    We aren't going to type out a list of every US war criminal ever. We are talking about current events and want the active war criminals stopped.

    Obviously we should try all war criminals, but let's stop the war crimes first

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    That's not my point. If Democrats seriously attack Trump on this, he'll hit back by attacking them for supporting Obama, and establishment Democrats won't throw their man under the bus. Ergo, nothing will happen. Screw Obama, but that's not the argument I'm making here.

    Edit: Aaand there it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    You know that Germany still exists, though, right? Something will happen...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    No other countries are coming to save you from yourselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    So to be clear, you're suggesting the reason for allied forces joining WW2 was to save Germany from itself?

    I'm not disagreeing that Trump will pardon everyone involved, I'm not disagreeing that no other country cares if the US comes out the other end, I'm just saying, these regimes have a history of not sticking around long term. So I'm disagreeing with the statement that "nothing will happen". Shit is happening and will continue to happen until their reign of terror is brought to an end, just like WW2.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    The thing is that Germany was a land empire; to expand they had to piss off and/or invade their powerful neighbors. America can do whatever the heck it wants and as long as they don't do something dumb like attack China they'll be left mostly to their own devices. Hell, I'd bet good money that the EU won't lift a finger if they annex Greenland. We're looking at more of a Franco or Sukharto situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    It’s not “their” reign of terror. They are a symptom.

    This shit is the fault of all Americans. Those who voted for it, those who enable it, and those who are sitting on their asses either thinking this ends with a new administration or who are waiting for someone else to come put Nazis in the ground for them.

    Blaming this on the Trump admin is like blaming a toddler for bringing a loaded handgun to school.

    The adults in the room number in the hundreds of millions and you’re doing fuck all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Your analogy can't have it both ways. Either the allies saved Germany from itself, implying there was a good portion saved from the fascist portion, OR the Nazi party was the fault of all Germans, those who voted for it, those who enable it, etc., and blaming any portion on Nazis/Hitler is like blaming a toddler. So which is it?

    I'm 86% convinced you're a divisiveness bot at this point. Prove me wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Germany was saved from itself as an undeserved RESULT of the allies’ victory. The allies didn’t go in to improve the lives of Nazi enabling German citizens, clearly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Isn't Europe continuing friendly relations with the US also enabling? Can't you vote in better governments who will draw a line in the sand against America? Still doing military exercises with us? Really? After Denmark was threatened with an invasion of Greenland? Why would Denmark let JD Vance go to Greenland and film a propaganda video while that was happening! Why?! Why let him do that? It's against Europe's interest to be in bed with us now. It certainly was considered enabling when they were doing it with Nazi Germany. Besides the way Europe is voting they're headed down the same path. In 10 years we could have a left-wing America and a fascist Europe.

    But I mean unlike Nazi Germany, the US is untouchable militarily speaking so it's a moot point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 11 months ago

    They could be, but they won't.

  • source
  • [–] 81 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    Held liable by whom? The President who absolutely would say he agreed with it? The legislature that will talk a good game but fold before doing anything important? The courts who are owned by the parties? Or the police who want this to be SOP, and wouldn't enforce any orders for arrest?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I guess some of these people expect to still be around in a couple years when there is a new administration that might feel like it's a good idea to prosecute people for crimes they committed for trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Aint a chance in hell anyone will face charges if the succeeding president is Kamala or Hug-a-Nazi Newsom. It would have to be progressive Democrat in office.

    I mean in months after Jan 6 Trump's head was on the chopping block, public support was gone and yet there was zero interest in Biden or his justice dept to go after him and the democrats didn't even press him on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    UCMJ is its own system enforced by the military with its own courts. Hegeseth will probably avoid any repercussions, but holding the chain of command responsible for state sponsored murder will send a clear message about obeying illegal orders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Nobody thinks it could happen while the US congress is dominated by Republicans, Trump is the president, and the Supreme Court is 6-3 GOP.

    But, if the Democrats win big enough in the 2026 midterm elections to overcome all the dirty tricks that the Nazis are going to use to try to stay in power, then maybe in 2027 there's a chance they could start holding Trump to account. But, Trump would still have executive authority and unless he were impeached and this time they actually had the votes to remove him from office, they still couldn't get his Justice Department to investigate his War Department. Even if they did impeach him and remove him from office, he's just be replaced by Vance who is part of this whole signal chat.

    So, at a minimum it would probably be 2029 before anything could happen, and would require that the Democrats got a congressional majority in 2026, and held or improved it in 2028 while also taking the presidency. And even then, the Supreme Court would still be 9-3 GOP unless some of the GOP members quit or died. So, it would probably require something radical like expanding the court to get any attempted convictions of higher-up GOP members past that court.

    And, that's even assuming that the democrats grew a backbone. If they did, they couldn't do anything to Trump because the Supreme Court already decided the president is immune from anything up to, and including ordering Delta Force to kill the Democratic presidential hopeful. They could maybe go after Hegseth and down, but realistically would they? How many times have the Democrats had a chance to nail Trump, and instead decided that in the interest of national unity to let his crimes slide.

    Then there's the International Criminal Court. They might risk indicting Hegseth or even Trump for war crimes. However, the US passed the Hague Invasion Act, effectively saying that if any American were ever put on trial for war crimes, the US would invade The Hague. That might deter them from even trying. Under Trump, they've already made life hell for a prosecutor who was going after someone who was merely a US ally. If a Democratic president were in office and a Democratic congress were in charge, they probably wouldn't actually invade, but they still might just ignore any ICC ruling. The US has made it abundantly clear that they're the world's only superpower and that international law doesn't actually apply to the US. And if anybody disagrees, they're welcome to take on the US military.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    No. Stop doing that.

    There is no Department of War. The Dept. of Defense is named in law and would have to be renamed by Congress. Renaming it without Congress is unlawful and using any taxpayer money for it is likely illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The murders weren't committed in the U.S. so...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago

    Spoiler: they won't.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago

    He is a murderer... all of them are.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    "Respect the chain of command." - Babylon 5 TV show

    Same thing Democrats said recently. Same thing Milley said last time Trump put soldiers on streets years ago. Back then Trump also said Milley should be hanged for saying it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Just like the Jan 6 hearings, they will drag it out for political points, but have no intention to seek actual charges, institutional change, military reform or anything.

    It will just be: "Look at all the evil shit they did! Don't you wish something could be done! Oh well. Also Maduro bad m'kay, drugs bad m'kay, Hamas bad m'kay, we love troops m'kay. Hearing adjourned!"

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    50/50 they pardon everyone or Trump uses this opportunity to forcefully retire more generals and get Hegseth out.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I meant they offer the other generals a sweetheart deal of early retirement in exchange for testimony against Hegseth. IIRC some of the people involved with the torture prison in Iraq got to retire for their testimony.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    Which means, as the law is being followed in the US right now, only the plebs at the bottom might be held responsible.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    Sure, sure, right after we convict Bush, Rice et al., for their war crimes in Iraq.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Could be, but won't. At least, not under this regime.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    Head of the U.S. Military’s Southern Command Is Stepping Down, Officials Say. Adm. Alvin Holsey is leaving less than a year into his tenure, and as the Pentagon escalates attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea.

    Maybe its ethics. Maybe some folks in the chain of command have the fear of God in them. Maybe there's just better pay in the private sector and now is as good a time as any to cash out. But I suspect stories like this are going to be increasingly common in the run up to the '26 election.

    Future President Pete Buttigieg will have a cabinet full of people who drew the line at double-tapping a Venezuelan fisherman. And they'll be spearheading our next Great Ethical War with... idk, Argentina or South Africa or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    we can hope for some high-profile resignations and maybe an outspoken admiral or something. And remember, it's only Trump's DOJ until it isn't anymore, and I think the statute of limitations on murder is more than 3 years...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    That's what should happen, but I won't be holding my breath.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Y'all mother fuckers ebeying in advance. These assholes will be held accountable. Call your representatives! Don't assume their power is so great because it's not!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    Our representatives are literally owned by Israel and Israel loves this administration so I doubt we’ll get anything except a congressional hearing where they get a pool noodle beating for an hour or two. Why isn’t Trump in prison? That was a slam dunk case

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    You are absolutely right. And even if they only end up charging some random lieutenant at the bottom of the chain, it will send a message to the rest of the troops that they will not be protected from the consequences of their actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    What absolute moron would obey that order?

    I could see how maybe you could believe there was justification for the initial strike but there can be no justification for killing people who are now defenceless. Although why not just board the vessel and take everyone into custody, why instantly resort to deadly force, did they have information that the people on the boat were heavily armed or otherwise able to threaten a US naval vessel?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago*

    I won’t claim to have researched it myself, but I’ve seen about a dozen different people quote the section of military law that talks about illegal orders that are so blatant you don’t need to check or think, they’re illegal, and the example they use is “firing upon the shipwrecked”.

    As in, the order to fire upon the shipwrecked should be immediately known to every Navy personnel as blatantly illegal as a precondition of their service.

    If you’re performing the example for an illegal order, you’re executing illegal orders.

    Edit: and I’m realizing now I responded to the wrong person.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    In my mind the rules are clear on that: to use deadly force there must be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Potential future harms can't even begin to be accounted for, so the standard has to be judged with those immediate circumstances in mind.

    Even in that situation there are means to deter a threat or determine a person's intent prior to employing any sort of lethal force. There's nothing justifiable about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    And they should be, MAGA is a terrorist organization

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    See that’s why they make everyone pull the trigger when they commit murder. Now they’re all complicit, and they have to work for trump and keep him in power. Because if someone with a spine that actually follows the law and constitution gets into office they will face court-martial.

    But we all know that they’ll just get raked over the coals by some committee and told to retire, if that, should a dem take office.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Could be, should be, won't be

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Oh don't worry, those down the chain will be prosecuted. Just not Hegseth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Ooh, I did not consider the possibility of a military court case on this. That could be a game-changer.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›