Transcription
So now we know. Now we know why President Trump and his administration got so freaked out when Democratic lawmakers, military and intelligence veterans who are now in Congress posted that video reminding American service members that they don't have to follow illegal orders. Now, it makes sense why that caused such a freak out, right?
I mean, it was sort of, on its face, a weird thing to get upset about not being obliged to follow illegal orders. That's like, you know, the sun rises in the east. It's a very normal thing. It's a statement of law and of the basic ethos of the US military. I mean, everybody in the US military, every officer, every enlisted person, everybody is taught that you don't follow illegal orders, you can't follow illegal orders. You must not follow illegal orders. So why are these guys freaking out that members of Congress just reiterated that one? Very true, long standing, non-controversial thing? Oh, now we know. That's why they were freaking out about it.
Because now we know that in September, just weeks ago, Donald Trump's Defense Secretary and former Fox News weekend co-host Pete Hegseth reportedly gave a verbal order to to kill everybody on board a boat in the Caribbean that was suspected of drug smuggling. That's according to The Washington Post, citing a person with direct knowledge of the operation. When a live drone feed showed two survivors of the attack on that boat clinging to the wreckage. A second missile was then fired at them to kill them so as to comply with Hegseth's order that nobody should be left alive, even once they were shipwrecked and floating in the ocean, clinging to debris and obviously a threat to no one.
Now, when I say this is a textbook example of an illegal order, I mean that literally, as Ryan Goodman from Justice Security and others have have since pointed out in the Law of War Manual at the Defense Department in the section on refusing to obey illegal orders. The quintessential example, the manual gives of an illegal order that must be refused is, quote, "For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal, clearly illegal." That is what the senior military lawyer at Southern Command reportedly concluded about the Caribbean boat strikes. He was sidelined by the Trump administration after expressing that view, according to NBC News. That commanding officer of Southern Command stepped down from his post early, something almost unheard of. That also happened, reportedly after he voiced concerns about whether these strikes were illegal.
The UK, our closest intelligence ally, reportedly believes these strikes are so illegal that the UK has stopped sharing intelligence with us. That might help the Trump administration carry out these strikes. Tonight, The Washington Post reports that some of Pete Hegseth's top civilian staff are, quote, "deeply alarmed about the revelations of what Hegseth ordered and are contemplating, quote, whether to leave the administration because of it." It really seems like they've been caught doing something.
"This committee is committed to providing rigorous oversight of the Defense Department's military operations in the Caribbean. We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics, and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question." That is a statement signed by the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith. It also, and this is news, it also is signed by the Republican Chairman of that committee. Republicans joining Democrats in pledging to investigate something the Trump administration did. Lions lying down with the lambs. It's like cats volunteering for baths. It's like the Jets winning a football game. What is going on here?
Joining us now is Congressman Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee in the House. Sir, thank you very much for being with us tonight. It's a pleasure to have you here.
"Thanks, Rachel. And ironically, the Jets did win a football game this weekend. So I guess we're living in a bizarro world all of a sudden."
"I'm just exactly, exactly my point. The craziest things imaginable can happen. Let me ask you first to for for those of our viewers who are thinking, listen, the strikes to blow up these boats in the Caribbean seem illegal enough. Why is it worse? Why is it a qualitatively different scenario? Why is it so much more upsetting to members of Congress that there was a follow-on strike to kill survivors of one of these initial attacks?"
"Look, that's a very fair question. And in my opinion, there's not that much of a difference. I've always felt these boat strikes were illegal for a wide variety of reasons. What seems to have made it different is it has gotten the attention of Republicans in Congress. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to get through this, this crack in this issue here to get a focus on what is a clearly illegal action. I love the fact that you went right to the UCMJ textbook that said, this is what we're talking about, that you can't do. So out of that crack, I hope, number one, we can pursue this. Absolutely. Because I think we had a clear instance, if this happened the way it has been reported, of a war crime. But then go beyond that. What's going on with the entire operation? It isn't even really about drugs. It doesn't seem if Trump is pardoning a major convicted drug dealer from Honduras because he happens to like the political party the guys with. So this is a crack to get to the wider issue, and I think it's worth focusing on that point you just made that the reason that it's illegal to hit these two guys when they're clinging to the side of a sinking boat is because they pose no threat to the US or US forces. But the same can be said of that boat before it was hit in the first place. Whatever you think about drugs and cocaine and the impact, that is not a military definition of a threat to US persons and US forces."
"I'm glad that you mentioned the apparent irony of the President alleging that Venezuela is such a threat to the United States because of drug trafficking, that he's ascribing to the President of Venezuela that we are effectively in a state of war with Venezuela. And that has led to these bizarre, I think, arguably pretty clearly extralegal illegal actions in the Caribbean against these boats. That's all happening on one side of the ledger, while on the other side of the ledger the President has is pledging to pardon the former President of Honduras, who was convicted of mass scale drug smuggling of cocaine into the United States. I mean, in the hundreds of tons territory. Because of that, because that sort of gives lie to the drug trafficking explanation for what's going on with us in Venezuela. Does that give you any more clarity on why they are ratcheting up this, this, these tensions with Venezuela, to the point where it almost feels like it may be war any day now?"
"Look, I personally have had clarity for some time with Donald Trump. This is about his personal power, and it's also about his 19th century belief in spheres of influence. You know, the Western Hemisphere is ours, and Petro and Venezuela are refusing to bend the knee to Trump. That's why he's going after them. It's not about drugs. It's about his power over the region. It's the same reason that he's selling out Ukraine to Russia in this belief of strongman rule and spheres of influence. So this is about much more than one illegal boat strike. And I hope people understand that."
"Do you expect to be able to review video, drone video of the strikes on the boat as you and your Republican colleagues pursue accountability here?"
"That is one of the many things that we are demanding. First, we want a full explanation about what happened, and we want to know the chain of command and the legality behind it. And by the way, for for Secretary Hegseth to be the the tough guy persona that he is. And then when this happened, he goes, oh, that was Admiral Bradlee's call. No, this was Secretary Haig's call. We want to know what the rules of engagement were. We want to know what the chain of command was and how this was laid out. And yes, we want all the videos, all the background, everything that went into this decision and everybody that was part of that chain of command to explain themselves on this. And again, I think on all of these boat strikes where this is going, why it is being done, and what is the legal justification in their minds?"
Congressman Adam Smith of Washington, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Sir, thanks very much for your time tonight. I really appreciate you being here.
"Thanks, Rachel. I appreciate the chance."
We should note that former JAGs, former military lawyers, put out a statement today saying anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both. That explains some of, I think, what the