The Pentagon says Defense Secretary Pete Haggath is quote escalating his review of Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. That probe is in response to Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers posting a video reminding service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders. Yet, it's a message that members of President Trump's own cabinet once agreed with just last year.Now, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the same thing when working as a lawyer for a conservative think tank, writing in a Supreme Court brief, ...

Political and Legal Analysis - Trump's pardon of Tina Peters is symbolic due to the state-level conviction, highlighting the limits of presidential power [2] - A group of lawmakers are seeking congressional authorization for military action in Venezuela, emphasizing the importance of checks and balances [3] - Concerns are raised regarding the legality of military strikes in Venezuela, particularly the September 2nd incident [5][9] - Reminding troops of their duty to not follow illegal orders is crucial, as highlighted by past statements from officials and military training [8][16][17] Military and Foreign Policy - The discussion emphasizes the need for congressional oversight of military actions to prevent unchecked and endless wars, referencing the $3 trillion spent and 7,000 American lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan [6][7] - The legality of strikes on Venezuelan boats is questioned, particularly concerning survivors [10][13] - There is a call for transparency and the release of video evidence related to the Venezuelan boat strikes [12] Constitutional and Ethical Concerns - Concerns are raised about potential violations of US criminal law, such as threatening protesters or sending troops to polling stations [10] - The response to reminding individuals in the administration to follow the law reveals a lack of respect for the Constitution [18]

Military and Legal Perspectives - The report highlights previous statements from Secretary Hegsith and Attorney General Pam Bondi affirming that military personnel are obligated to refuse unlawful orders [1][2][3] - Legal precedent dictates that military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders, reinforcing the principle of accountability within the armed forces [1][2] - Discussion includes a hypothetical scenario where a president orders the military to kill a political rival, emphasizing that such an order would be unlawful and service members are required to refuse it [3] Congressional Oversight and Authorization - The report underscores the lack of congressional authorization for recent military strikes, raising concerns about the legality and scope of executive power [9][10] - Congressman Chris Delucio calls for a full congressional investigation into the boat strikes, including access to video feeds and testimony under oath [8][9] - The report emphasizes that Congress has not declared war or authorized military force, suggesting that the president and defense secretary are operating outside of lawful boundaries [9] Political and Economic Implications - The report suggests potential political blowback, even within the president's base, if Americans are put in harm's way without proper authorization [13] - Congressman Delucio criticizes the president's handling of affordability issues, stating that prices have continued to rise and have been made worse by trade wars and tax policies [15] - The report mentions concerns about the affordability crisis and the impact of tariffs on constituents, particularly younger generations who may not expect to be better off than their parents [14][15]

Congressman, thank you so much for joining us today. Uh, you are a member of the House Armed Services Committee, but it's my understanding that you um were not briefed today. Why did the entire House Armed Services and Intel Committees not receive a briefing today.>> Great question. You know, the admiral was was brought in to the leaders of both the armed services, the intel committee, as I understand it, House and Senate. The full committees need to hear from certainly the admiral, uh, who by all accounts ...

Oversight & Accountability - Congresswoman Goodlander emphasizes Congress's constitutional responsibility for oversight of the Pentagon and the importance of getting to the bottom of the facts regarding the strike [4][5] - The legal basis of the military campaign and the legality of the strikes are deeply in question, requiring close scrutiny [7] - Congress and the free press are critical to getting to the bottom of the issue and upholding the principles of American governance [10] Criticism of Secretary of Defense - Congresswoman Goodlander criticizes Secretary Hegset, stating he is unserious and lacks the experience and judgment to serve as Secretary of Defense [2][3] - Secretary Hegset is accused of shirking responsibility in a position of public trust [2] - The administration faces serious questions regarding the strike, particularly concerning the Secretary of Defense's actions and explanations [6] Rule of Law & Military Justice - The principle of law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is highlighted, emphasizing the importance of a system of rule of law [9] - The congresswoman references a video advising service members to refuse illegal orders, raising questions about the legality of the strike [8]

Defense Department Investigation & Concerns - Senator Mark Kelly and other lawmakers are under investigation by the Defense Department for a video reminding service members to follow the law [1][10] - The investigation was initiated following a tweet from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth [11] - Senator Kelly expresses concern about the competence of Secretary Hegseth and the potential for illegal orders, citing President Trump's past statements [1] "Double Tap" Strike Incident - The "double tap" strike incident is inconsistent with the laws of armed conflict and the Department of Defense's manual of war [1] - Senator Kelly calls for a thorough investigation into the incident, expressing distrust in the administration to provide complete information [1] - Secretary Hegseth was present and watching the operation live, making him responsible as the senior member in the operational chain of command [1] Secretary Hegseth's Leadership & Conduct - Secretary Hegseth's leadership style is described as "swaggering around" and using a "macho lexicon," referring to himself as the "Secretary of War" [1] - There is regret among some Republican senators who voted to confirm Secretary Hegseth, acknowledging his incompetence [1] - Secretary Hegseth is criticized for blaming others and lacking responsibility, contrasting with typical leadership behavior [1][8] Rules of Engagement & Accountability - Executing survivors in the water is against the law, and the proper procedure is to rescue survivors and then sink the boat [1] - Members of the military have a responsibility to not follow illegal orders [1] - There is a need for transparency and accountability regarding the incident, including making the legal analysis public [4][5][6]

Alleged Illegal Military Actions & Potential War Crimes - The report centers on allegations that former Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an illegal verbal order to kill everyone on board a boat in the Caribbean suspected of drug smuggling [3][4] - A second missile was allegedly fired at two survivors clinging to wreckage to comply with the order, which is described as a textbook example of an illegal order, specifically "orders to fire upon the shipwrecked" [4][5] - A senior military lawyer at Southern Command reportedly concluded the Caribbean boat strikes were illegal and was subsequently sidelined by the Trump administration [5][6] - The UK reportedly stopped sharing intelligence with the US due to the alleged illegality of these strikes [7] - Former military lawyers stated that anyone issuing or following such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both [21] Congressional Investigation & Bipartisan Concern - The House Armed Services Committee, including both Democrats and Republicans, is committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Defense Department's military operations in the Caribbean and is taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation [8] - Congressman Adam Smith stated that the boat strikes were illegal and that the follow-on strike to kill survivors is a war crime if the reports are accurate [12][13] - The committee is demanding a full explanation, the chain of command, the legality behind the operation, videos, background mail, and explanations from everyone involved in the decision [19] Broader Implications & Motives - Congressman Adam Smith suggests the issue extends beyond drugs and is related to President Trump's personal power and belief in spheres of influence, particularly regarding Venezuela [13][17] - The alleged actions in the Caribbean are contrasted with President Trump's reported intention to pardon a Honduran president convicted of mass-scale drug smuggling, undermining the drug trafficking justification for actions against Venezuela [15][16]

Allegations of Illegal Military Action - News reports suggest deadly strikes were launched on survivors of an initial military strike near Venezuela on September 2nd, raising questions about potential violations of international law [1][4] - The core allegation is that Secretary Hegsth gave verbal orders to "kill everybody," ensuring no survivors, which, if true, could constitute a violation of international law or even murder, depending on whether the action occurred during an armed conflict [4][5][6] - A bipartisan group of members of Congress is reportedly planning to investigate the incident thoroughly [6] Legal and Political Implications - If the White House's claim that the operation was part of fighting against narcotism is true, then the rules of engagement apply, and a "no quarters" order would violate international law; otherwise, it could be considered an extrajudicial killing [5][6] - Investigations are expected within the military and the Justice Department to determine the facts and accountability, potentially leading to resignations, impeachment proceedings, or formal legal action [8] - Democrats who issued a video reminding military members not to follow illegal orders are now under investigation by the FBI and Pentagon, while Democrats in Arizona are asking Hegsth to drop his investigation of Senator Mark Kelly [9] Pardons and Executive Orders - The President has an unrestricted pardon power except for impeachment, meaning pardons cannot be reversed, although attempts to do so might lead to court challenges [12][13] - The current President might attempt to reverse executive orders related to the former President's use of the autopen, including pardons, but such efforts are unlikely to succeed [12][13] JAG Structure - Secretary Hegsith previously eliminated most of the JAG (Judge Advocate General) structure, leading to an informal JAG working group that issued a rare statement deeming the military action illegal [11]

Let me ask you about the other big story this week. You joined uh five other Democratic lawmakers in a video urging service members to disobey orders they believe are illegal. We're seeing some of that video play, Senator, right now.In response, the Pentagon has opened an investigation into military laws. It says that you may have violated the FBI is reportedly launching its own probe. Now, Defense Secretary Pete Hegsith has personally threatened to recall you uh to active duty so that you can be court mars ...

FBI and Justice Department officials are working to arrange interviews with six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video advising service members not to follow illegal orders. The video enraged President Trump, who posted on social media last Friday that the lawmakers, all of whom have previously served in the military or US intelligence, should be arrested. He also accused them of sedicious behavior punishable by death.The four members of the house who appeared in the video, Jason Crowe, Chris Duzio, M ...