like us, you all swore an oath >> to protect and defend this constitution. >> I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. >> Our laws are clear.You can refuse illegal orders. >> If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and uh and and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. >> No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.>> That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders uh from their commander-in-chief. Whether you're serv ...

Allegations and Denials - A Washington Post report alleges Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the killing of everyone on board a suspected drug boat, including those clinging to wreckage [1] - Hegseth denies the report, and President Trump expresses his belief in Hegseth's denial [2] Congressional Concerns and Investigations - Some members of Congress express concern that the alleged actions could be a war crime and are calling for bipartisan investigations [2][4] - Lawmakers are concerned about the legality of the strikes and the legal justifications provided by the administration [6] Potential Legal and Ethical Violations - Concerns raised about a potential "double tap" strike, which could violate the Geneva Convention [7] - Striking against someone wounded and clinging to debris is considered a war crime under the Geneva Convention, the laws of land warfare, and the UN charter [12] - The situation raises concerns about senior civilian leaders potentially urging actions that violate the law of armed conflict [9] Impact on Service Members - The situation places service members in a difficult position, caught between their legal obligations, moral conscience, and the pressure of civilian authority [10] Evidence and Testimony - Film of both the original and secondary strikes should exist [8] - Key individuals who could testify include Secretary Hegseth, members of the Special Operations Command involved, and Admiral Holy [9]

General, a lot to sort through here and yet it really does seem simple. Andy McCarthy, a very conservative legal commentator who has supported Republicans for I mean it's the reason he's a Fox News contributor because he is conservative uh in in his worldview in writing things. But Andy McCarthy puts it two ways.First of all, he says he doesn't think this constitutes war attacking these boats. um and says if it doesn't constitute war, it's murder. But even if you believe, and he says, even for argument's sa ...

What would it do to the military profession for the commander-in-chief to call a retired member of the military back to active duty just so he could court marshall them for saying things he didn't like. Now, that is of course what Trump is currently trying to do to Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. But this isn't even the first time that question is being posed within a Trump White House because former defense secretary Esper had to deal with this question from the commander-in-chief back in 2020 during Trump' ...

We first brought this to you last hour. The Pentagon said it was looking into serious allegations of misconduct against Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. This followed he and five others who either for the former military or former intelligence saying to troops that they can defy unlawful orders. Well, now for the first time we are hearing from Senator Kelly. Uh let me bring you in if I can. Um, Michael Michael Schnell, obviously our Capitol Hill reporter. I'm not used to seeing you uh in person at the desk, b ...

have other n breaking news right now. Uh we first brought this to you last hour. The Pentagon said it was looking into serious allegations of misconduct against Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. This followed he and five others who either for the former military or former intelligence saying to troops that they can defy unlawful orders. Well, now for the first time we are hearing from Senator Kelly. Uh let me bring you in if I can. Um, Michael Michael Schnell, obviously our Capitol Hill reporter. I'm not used ...

Political Discourse & Legal Principles - Democratic lawmakers urged military members to not obey unlawful orders, citing their oath to the Constitution [1][4][5] - President Trump responded by accusing the lawmakers of sedition, a statement perceived as a threat [2][3] - The debate centers on the principle that service members are obligated to refuse illegal orders [2][4] - The Congresswoman emphasizes the importance of moral and legal clarity in the current political climate [6] Concerns Regarding Presidential Actions - Concerns exist about the President potentially issuing unlawful orders to the military [12] - The Secretary of Defense's refusal to commit to abiding by a Supreme Court decision raises concerns [15] - The administration is perceived as testing the boundaries of the law, placing service members in a difficult position [14] Reactions & Repercussions - The video evoked a strong reaction from the administration, including criticism from the White House press secretary [9][10] - The White House press secretary suggested the lawmakers' actions were dangerous and potentially punishable by law [10][11] - The Congresswoman reported an increase in political violence and threats since the video's release [7][8]

It was really disheartening. I I received a text from uh a a person who uh I served with before and he said to me, he said, "You know, it's it's normal to disagree with the commander-in-chief." He said, "But I don't know if it's normal to be embarrassed by him." Mhm. And he said, "And I'm embarrassed." You know it it's and when we take the oath we do we take the oath that we are going to follow the constitution of the United States of America and we will follow the lawful orders of the commander-in-chief. I ...