Transcription
The United States is part of something called the Five Eyes. Uh, it's five countries: the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. The Five Eyes countries, uh, share intelligence in a relatively seamless way. This is an arrangement that originated in World War II. It continues today, and it's really, really important. Members of the Five Eyes like to describe it as the world's oldest and most significant intelligence alliance. It's literally decades of these five countries, these five like-minded nations, freely sharing intelligence with each other about everything from, you know, Soviet spies to terrorism plots to drug trafficking and everything in between.
That said, it is not at all clear that the Five Eyes Alliance is going to survive the Trump administration. Quote, "The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in US military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal." CNN broke the news of the UK's intelligence sharing suspension, uh, on Veterans Day this month, reporting, quote, "For years, the UK, which controls a number of territories in the Caribbean where it's b- where it bases intelligence assets, have helped the US locate vessels suspected of carrying drugs so that the US Coast Guard could interdict them."
The UK's decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the US military's campaign around Latin America. The skepticism is not just coming from our allies, though. It is also coming from inside the US military. The senior military lawyer at Southern Command, which is the combatant command that oversees all the attacks on, you know, fishing boats that Trump keeps doing in that region. That senior JAG officer reportedly told his superiors that these strikes on these boats were illegal. But he was reportedly overruled and then pushed aside from the decision-making process inside that combatant command. NBC News reporting that that JAG, that military lawyer at Southern Command, quote, specifically expressed concern that strikes against people on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific could amount to extrajudicial killings and therefore legally expose service members involved in the operations.
And if our long-standing allies are pulling out of intelligence sharing with us because they think Trump's orders on these boat strikes are illegal, and if US military lawyers, senior US military lawyers with expertise in the field and in the region, if they are being pushed out of their jobs for saying that Trump's orders against these boats are illegal, well, that might go some distance toward explaining why six members of Congress, all of them former military or intelligence officers, decided to release this video about the possibility that Trump might be giving military orders that are illegal.
>> We want to speak directly to members of the military >> and the intelligence community >> who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. Like us, you all swore an oath >> to protect and defend this Constitution. >> And right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. >> Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. >> You must refuse illegal orders.
This video seems to have touched a nerve with President Donald Trump, who said in response that these lawmakers had committed quote "seditious behavior punishable by death." He's calling for sitting members of Congress to be executed for saying that US service members must refuse illegal orders, which, in fact, is a true thing about US military, US service members under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Today, the Pentagon said it is investigating US Senator Mark Kelly, a decorated retired Navy captain, for his part in this video. Pentagon saying they are reviewing quote "serious allegations of misconduct against Senator Kelly" and that he could be recalled to active duty for court-martial proceedings.
Joining us now for his first TV interview since that Pentagon threat is Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, retired Navy Navy captain, and of course, NASA astronaut. Senator Kelly, it's an honor to have you here tonight. Thank you.
>> Thank you for having me on, Rachel. Let me first just get your response to this threat from the defense department saying that they are investigating you. They may potentially recall you to, uh, active duty to face a court-martial.
>> Well, Rachel, I said something that was pretty simple and non-controversial, and that was that members of the military should follow the law. And in response to that, Donald Trump said, "I should be executed. I should be hanged. I should be prosecuted." He even went on and said something about "go get them," uh, I guess sending a mob, uh, to round me and the other folks up. So, um, this is, I think, it says a lot more about him than it says about me. He doesn't want accountability. But Rachel, I'm not going to be silenced. I'm not going to be intimidated.
When you and your colleagues made that video, um, were there specific potentially illegal orders that you were thinking about that, um, were the sort of, um, precipitating cause for you guys to get together and do that?
>> Here's the thing, Rachel. You don't want to wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell them to look both ways. It's pretty simple. And if you go back to 2016, Donald Trump on a debate stage talking about, uh, you know, some action that he was going to take, he was reminded by the moderator that that would be illegal, that the military wouldn't be able to follow those orders. And his response, Donald Trump's response was, "The military would not refuse my orders." And then as president, he talked about shooting people, citizens of this country, in the legs, protesters. Now, thankfully, Mark Esper, Mark Millie, uh, explained to him that that would be not, not be a good idea. Now he's talking about the Insurrection Act, sending troops to more cities, using US cities and as training grounds and US citizens for training of the United States military. So, Rachel, we wanted to do something pretty simple here. We wanted to just remind folks that they need to, um, comply with the law and be reminded, and also explain to members of the military that we have their backs, that we know what's going on. It's part of our job, accountability over the federal government. Uh, and this is the response we get. He, he told the world that we should be hanged.
I wanted to ask you about that pledge, uh, that "we have your backs." It's, uh, sort of the apex of that, that piece, that video that you made with, um, with your colleagues. What does that mean in practical terms? If I'm a, um, an enlisted service member somewhere, maybe I'm serving in Southern Command, maybe I'm asked to do something that I believe is illegal or that I have received advice might be illegal. Um, if those service members are thinking about you right now as being on their side, as having their back, what does that mean in practical terms about what that service member can do when faced with a potentially illegal order from the commander-in-chief and from the chain of command?
>> Well, Rachel, I spent 25 years in the United States Navy. I flew 39 combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait. Let me start by saying I never, uh, questioned any order. And you're required to follow all legal orders. You're also required not to follow illegal ones. And I think most people can figure out, you know, it just takes some common sense in what would be an illegal order. Um, but I think it's important for people to know that they need to be able to stand up and and speak out. And I wanted them to know that members of Congress understand that this president, uh, doesn't seem to care about the Constitution, the rule of law. And I have to say, I don't think there's anything more patriotic than standing up for the Constitution. And right here, right now, this week, the president clearly is not doing that.
Of the six Democratic lawmakers who, um, made these statements which have so upset the president, um, he's coming after you. Um, at least he's coming after you first. Do you have any opinion as to why he may have singled you out in this way?
>> I, I don't know. We, we would, we would have to ask him that question. Um, could be him, could be Pete Hegseth, I don't know, you know. And I would have been really shocked if any other president, you know, did this, but when I saw that tweet today, it kind of sort of made sense. I mean, these two guys, they, they informed me of this in a, in a tweet because this is not about the law. This is about the media cycle and it's about intimidation. And it's almost the whole thing's almost comical. Like, how does reciting the UCMJ, how is that, which is the Uniform Code of Military Justice? We basically repeated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and they're saying that's in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's absurd.
Um, I hear you when you say that it is absurd, um, and that it is almost comical, but also that it is intended to be intimidating. I do just have to ask you at a human level, Senator. Um, you and your family have dealt with more than your fair share of sacrifice, uh, for this country and trial and tribulation. I just have to ask, um, even though I, I, I hear you when you say you're not intimidated, this must be a source of, of, of stress, um, for, for you and your family. I just have to ask the kind of impact that it's having on you and your loved ones.
>> Rachel, I've had a missile blow up next to my airplane. And I've been shot down, nearly shot down multiple times. I've flown a rocket ship into space four times, built by the lowest bidder. And my wife, Gabby Giffords, meeting with her constituents, shot in the head, six people killed around her. Uh, a horrific thing. She spent six months in the hospital. Uh, we know what political violence is, and we know what causes it, too. You know, the statements that Donald Trump made, um, is insightful, incites others. He's got millions of supporters. People listen to what he says more so than anybody else in the country. And he should be careful with his words, but I'm not going to be silenced here. Uh, is it, is it stressful? I've been stressed by, you know, things more important than Donald Trump trying to intimidate me into shutting my mouth and not doing my job. He didn't like what I said. I'm going to show up for work every day, support the Constitution, do my job, hold this administration accountable, hold this president accountable when he, when he is out of line. Um, that's the responsibility of every US senator and every member of Congress. He's not going to silence us.
Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. Sir, thank you so much, uh, for your time and for being here tonight, uh, to give us that response. I really appreciate it, sir.
Thank you, Rachel.