SLOTKIN STUMPED! Senator Admits She's 'Not Aware' of Any 'Illegal' Orders From Trump to Military [WATCH]

[BCP1928]

But once again, from Corporal Smith's perspective, an illegal order is an order to break a specific law. In his defense at the court-martial, he will have to cite the specific law being broken. And, surprise, surprise, "the Constitution" is a wrong answer for Corporal Smith because only the judiciary can interpret the Constitution, not minor Executive Branch member Corporal Smith.

They didn't even say all that. What they said was very carefully crafted...they said precisely, word for word, what each troop's LOAC training already says.


That's true and ultimately it would fail--not even "ultimately," but immediately--because Kelly's video does not remotely qualify as sedition under the UCMJ or US code.

Of course, Kelly has had, presumably, training in what constitutes an illegal order just as you have had. I will presume--until his court-martial or other developments reveal more information--that when he speaks of a right to refuse an illegal order he is speaking of orders which Cpl. Smith already knows to be illegal, most likely through his training in the matter, not one that he has to figure out whether it is illegal by personally consulting the Constitution. What Cpl. Smith is being reminded of is that he need not be bullied or threatened into carrying it out anyway.

Granted the above is just my opinion and the video itself was pretty stupid, but the MAGA response suggests to me that they resent the implied challenge to the basic MAGA principle that the word of Trump alone is law that all must obey.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A favorite of the major media, when Trump responds he "lashes out."

Have you seen his Truth Social feed? If the shoe fits...

It's quite another thing to make an announcement against the President of the United States,

Was his name or office mentioned?

Answer: it is not

suggesting that he gives illegal orders

Was that said?

Answer: no

 

[DaisyDay]

But once again, from Corporal Smith's perspective, an illegal order is an order to break a specific law. In his defense at the court-martial, he will have to cite the specific law being broken. And, surprise, surprise, "the Constitution" is a wrong answer for Corporal Smith because only the judiciary can interpret the Constitution, not minor Executive Branch member Corporal Smith.

Again, isn't that what JAGs are for in part?

They didn't even say all that. What they said was very carefully crafted...they said precisely, word for word, what each troop's LOAC training already says.

Right, they didn't talk about sedition. Carefully citing their training is not wrong.

That's true and ultimately it would fail--not even "ultimately," but immediately--because Kelly's video does not remotely qualify as sedition under the UCMJ or US code.

So is all this just more distraction from you-know-what/who?

 

[DaisyDay]

Have you seen his Truth Social feed? If the shoe fits...


Was his name or office mentioned?

Answer: it is not

Was that said?

Answer: no

The actual president of the United States has called for these people to be hanged. Killed. Executed. I agree with you that this qualifies as "lashing out".

 

[RDKirk]

Again, isn't that what JAGs are for in part?

In practicality, if Smith gets an order that is "manifestly illegal," it will come from some level not far above him, not from major command level or higher.

If the order originated from major command or higher, the necessary JAGs will have vetted the order (that is, written the necessary legalese around it) before Corporal Smith gets it. It won't be "manifestly illegal."

 

[DaisyDay]

In practicality, if Smith gets an order that is "manifestly illegal," it will come from some level not far above him, not from major command level or higher.

If the order originated from major command or higher, the necessary JAGs will have vetted the order (that is, written the necessary legalese around it) before Corporal Smith gets it. It won't be "manifestly illegal."

I've been reading that a lot of the top military lawyers were let go as part of the Trump purge/consolidation of power.

Explainer: JAG Firings Spark Concerns About US Military Legal Oversight

In a significant shake-up at the Pentagon last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. This decision comes amid a broader series of dismis...

www.jurist.org

...But despite the high profile natures of these firings, some analysts have argued that the firings of the military’s top lawyers — its Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) — poses an even greater threat to the rule of law in the US.​

​

“Trump…firing the Army, Navy, and Air Force JAGs [is in some ways] even more chilling than firing the four star [generals]. It’s what you do when you’re planning to break the law: you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down,” wrote Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks on X.​

​

“When you start firing the military’s top lawyers, that means you are getting ready to order the military to do unlawful things. Trump replaces those JAGs with men who will justify any future unlawful and unethical actions that he wants the military to do,” wrote Democratic political candidate and former US fighter pilot Amy McGrath, also via X.​

And more recently - eight months later:

Hegseth fired the Air Force’s top lawyer. The JAG who took on the job is stepping away.

It’s been eight months since the service had a Senate-confirmed leader in the role.

www.defenseone.com

Eight months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force’s top lawyer, the judge advocate general tasked with those duties has stepped down. No one has yet been nominated to permanently fill either of the service’s top legal jobs.​

​

Maj. Gen. Rebecca Vernon, who had served as deputy Air Force JAG since 2022, became acting JAG after Hegseth’s Feb. 21 announcement that he was firing Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer. Vernon’s last day on the job was Sunday and her retirement date is set for January 1, 2026, Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said.​

​

...​

The judge advocate general of each military service—TJAG for short—must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. A former Air Force lawyer said the lack of a Senate-confirmed TJAG leaves the branch’s legal officers in limbo.​

​

“It’s tough to make any long-term plans without that position filled,” the lawyer said. “We’re in the middle of assignment season and the TJAG makes those decisions. There’s a ripple effect throughout the [JAG] Corps that hurts morale, retention, budgets, hiring, and every major policy decision.”​

​

The services are missing more than their top JAGs: the Pentagon has also been sending lower-level lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges.​

​

This has raised concerns among legal experts. Margy O’Herron, a senior fellow in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, wrote in September that the administration’s plan will pull JAGs “away from the important work they are trained and assigned to do, risking military readiness.”​

​

Earlier this year, Hegseth said he fired the Air Force and Army TJAGs because they were "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”​

That just doesn't fill me with confidence that the secretary is not and will not issue illegal orders.

 

[RDKirk]

I've been reading that a lot of the top military lawyers were let go as part of the Trump purge/consolidation of power.

Explainer: JAG Firings Spark Concerns About US Military Legal Oversight

In a significant shake-up at the Pentagon last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. This decision comes amid a broader series of dismis...

www.jurist.org

...But despite the high profile natures of these firings, some analysts have argued that the firings of the military’s top lawyers — its Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) — poses an even greater threat to the rule of law in the US.​

​

“Trump…firing the Army, Navy, and Air Force JAGs [is in some ways] even more chilling than firing the four star [generals]. It’s what you do when you’re planning to break the law: you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down,” wrote Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks on X.​

​

“When you start firing the military’s top lawyers, that means you are getting ready to order the military to do unlawful things. Trump replaces those JAGs with men who will justify any future unlawful and unethical actions that he wants the military to do,” wrote Democratic political candidate and former US fighter pilot Amy McGrath, also via X.​

And more recently - eight months later:

Hegseth fired the Air Force’s top lawyer. The JAG who took on the job is stepping away.

It’s been eight months since the service had a Senate-confirmed leader in the role.

www.defenseone.com

Eight months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force’s top lawyer, the judge advocate general tasked with those duties has stepped down. No one has yet been nominated to permanently fill either of the service’s top legal jobs.​

​

Maj. Gen. Rebecca Vernon, who had served as deputy Air Force JAG since 2022, became acting JAG after Hegseth’s Feb. 21 announcement that he was firing Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer. Vernon’s last day on the job was Sunday and her retirement date is set for January 1, 2026, Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said.​

​

...​

The judge advocate general of each military service—TJAG for short—must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. A former Air Force lawyer said the lack of a Senate-confirmed TJAG leaves the branch’s legal officers in limbo.​

​

“It’s tough to make any long-term plans without that position filled,” the lawyer said. “We’re in the middle of assignment season and the TJAG makes those decisions. There’s a ripple effect throughout the [JAG] Corps that hurts morale, retention, budgets, hiring, and every major policy decision.”​

​

The services are missing more than their top JAGs: the Pentagon has also been sending lower-level lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges.​

​

This has raised concerns among legal experts. Margy O’Herron, a senior fellow in the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, wrote in September that the administration’s plan will pull JAGs “away from the important work they are trained and assigned to do, risking military readiness.”​

​

Earlier this year, Hegseth said he fired the Air Force and Army TJAGs because they were "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”​

That just doesn't fill me with confidence that the secretary is not and will not issue illegal orders.

That only means the lawyers themselves aren't morally concerned about the legality. But those orders will be couched in legalese to confuse the issue to force the issue to the Supreme Court. We see this in the case of the Venezuelan speed boats. The orders are couched in legalese about the "War on Terror" as already authorized by Congress. But Congress will not pass a resolution to clarify that the White House is outside the intended scope of the War on Terror. The Supreme Court historically refuses to get involved in military operations, and this Court certainly won't.

A soldier is only held accountable for "manifestly illegal" orders, and this is not a "manifestly illegal" order if Congress keeps silent and it has to go to court.

 

[DaisyDay]

That only means the lawyers themselves aren't morally concerned about the legality.

Morally concerned? Please explain what only means that.

But those orders will be couched in legalese to confuse the issue to force the issue to the Supreme Court. We see this in the case of the Venezuelan speed boats. The orders are couched in legalese about the "War on Terror" as already authorized by Congress. But Congress will not pass a resolution to clarify that the White House is outside the intended scope of the War on Terror. The Supreme Court historically refuses to get involved in military operations, and this Court certainly won't.

A soldier is only held accountable for "manifestly illegal" orders, and this is not a "manifestly illegal" order if Congress keeps silent and it has to go to court.

Using a "War on Terror" to invoke the Alien Enemies Act seems specious at best being as "Terror" is not an entity and it has no citizens, soldiers, etc. It is in the same category as the "War on Cancer" or the "War on Poverty".

Are the current White House lawyers well versed on military and international law? It seems counter-intuitive that striking a boat in international waters and killing all aboard instead of indicting them would be legal.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Can you provide a citation?

You ask for a citation, and he just laughs and runs away. Interesting.

 

[DaisyDay]

You ask for a citation, and he just laughs and runs away. Interesting.

Two posts after the request, citation supplied, never acknowledged. Uninteresting but expected.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The orders to strike the fishing boats

The "fishing boats."

Perhaps all the fishing gear is underneath all the cocaine?

 

[RDKirk]

Morally concerned? Please explain what only means that.

Charitably speaking, a military lawyer's job is to explain to the commander how the commander can get his mission done legally. The lawyer doesn't say, "You can't do it," the lawyer says, "This is how to do it legally."

Without speaking charitably, that job does not necessarily involve invoking any kind of personal moral views. The morality of the matter is encoded within the applicable laws.

For instance, the Law of Armed Conflict (which includes applicable portions of the Geneva Conventions) states that US forces are prohibited from attacking a school or hospital--unless enemy forces are already using that school or hospital as an operational location. In that case, US forces may attack that school or hospital. The Law of Armed Conflict (in concert with the Geneva Conventions) places the moral fault on the forces that first began using those buildings for miltary purposes.

That particular lawyer may personally feel different. He may feel that the US should not under any circumstances attack a school or hospital. But it's not his job to transmit his own personal morality, but the morality encapsulated in the LOAC.

Using a "War on Terror" to invoke the Alien Enemies Act seems specious at best being as "Terror" is not an entity and it has no citizens, soldiers, etc. It is in the same category as the "War on Cancer" or the "War on Poverty".

Are the current White House lawyers well versed on military and international law? It seems counter-intuitive that striking a boat in international waters and killing all aboard instead of indicting them would be legal.

Depends on how they interpret the current Congressional resolutions. The president has presented his interpretation...it's up to Congress to dispute it.

Which Congress hasn't done yet.

What we think about in the peanut gallery is for us to make clear on election day.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Charitably speaking, a military lawyer's job is to explain to the commander how the commander can get his mission done legally. The lawyer doesn't say, "You can't do it," the lawyer says, "This is how to do it legally."

Without speaking charitably, that job does not necessarily involve invoking any kind of personal moral views. The morality of the matter is encoded within the applicable laws.

For instance, the Law of Armed Conflict (which includes applicable portions of the Geneva Conventions) states that US forces are prohibited from attacking a school or hospital--unless enemy forces are already using that school or hospital as an operational location. In that case, US forces may attack that school or hospital. The Law of Armed Conflict (in concert with the Geneva Conventions) places the moral fault on the forces that first began using those buildings for miltary purposes.

That particular lawyer may personally feel different. He may feel that the US should not under any circumstances attack a school or hospital. But it's not his job to transmit his own personal morality, but the morality encapsulated in the LOAC.



Depends on how they interpret the current Congressional resolutions. The president has presented his interpretation...it's up to Congress to dispute it.

Which Congress hasn't done yet.

What we think about in the peanut gallery is for us to make clear on election day.

Correct. It is the Chaplain's job to advise commanders on morality. The JAG advises on how to accomplish the commanders objective legally.