bagrounds.org

5 min read

Home > Videos

🪖👨‍⚖️❓ Military personnel seek legal advice on whether Trump-ordered missions are lawful

🤖 AI Summary

  • ⚓ Military service personnel are seeking outside legal advice regarding certain missions assigned by the Trump administration [00:05].
  • 🔥 U.S. military strikes against vessels allegedly carrying drugs have resulted in dozens of people 💀 killed in the Caribbean and Pacific [00:34].
  • ⚖️ President Trump defended the lethal strikes, claiming they are legal in international waters and prevent hundreds of thousands of drug 💊 deaths annually [01:00].
  • 📝 A classified Justice Department memo reportedly asserted that U.S. troops involved in the boat strikes would not face legal 🛡️ jeopardy [01:24].
  • 📞 Calls to The Orders Project, which provides independent legal advice, are increasing from staff officers involved in planning the boat strikes [01:51].
  • 🤫 Staff officers involved in implementation are reportedly feeling pressure from higher-ups to change their legal assessments from a nonconcurrence to a 🤝 concurrence [03:33].
  • 💂 National Guard personnel are calling with questions about domestic deployments to American 🏙️ cities due to the back-and-forth court rulings [04:03].
  • 🚫 The Department of Justice publicly stated the strikes are lawful orders consistent with the laws of armed conflict, thus military personnel are obligated to follow them [05:51].
  • 🛑 Relying solely on a DOJ memo for blanket immunity is a mistake, as state courts or foreign countries could invoke universal 🌍 jurisdiction for atrocity crimes [07:04].

🤔 Evaluation

  • ⚖️ Contrast on Legality: The video notes the Justice Department claims the military strikes are 🟢 lawful under the laws of armed conflict [05:56]. 🆚 This contrasts sharply with legal analysis from sources like the New York City Bar Association and the Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania, which argue the strikes are 🔴 unlawful under international law (jus ad bellum) and constitute arbitrary, extrajudicial 🔪 killings under human rights law. Experts assert that absent congressional authorization, these actions remain 🚨 illegal.
  • 🤝 Contrast on Procedure: The Trump administration’s approach upended the long-standing policy of treating drug interdiction as a law enforcement issue where the Coast Guard would interdict ships and provide due process. 🚢 The previous method focused on maritime interdiction and law enforcement, not lethal force against 🧍 civilians allegedly involved in commercial drug trafficking.
  • ❓ Topics to Explore:
    • 🏛️ The final outcomes of the various appellate court challenges concerning the President’s authority to federalize and deploy the National Guard in 🇺🇸 American cities.
    • 🕵️ The long-term implications of the alleged DOJ immunity memo concerning the Posse Comitatus Act and the potential for foreign prosecution under universal jurisdiction, as highlighted by Colonel Rosenblatt [07:48].
    • ☠️ Diplomatic fallout concerning the strikes, including reports that allies like Britain and Canada have distanced themselves or ⏸️ paused intelligence sharing due to legality concerns [1.9].

❓ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

❓ Q: What is the legal controversy surrounding US military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats?

✅ A: The 🚢 controversy centers on whether using lethal military force against civilian vessels on the high seas is legal under U.S. and international law. 💥 The Trump administration asserts the strikes are a lawful exercise of self-defense against the harm caused by drugs, but legal experts argue they are unlawful extrajudicial killings that violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and exceed the limits of executive power without 📜 congressional authorization [06:43].

❓ Q: Why are National Guard members seeking legal advice regarding domestic deployments?

✅ A: National Guard personnel are 📞 seeking independent advice due to the legal uncertainty and constant back-and-forth court challenges concerning the federal government’s authority to deploy them to U.S. 🏙️ cities [04:03]. 🛑 Their concerns are twofold: compliance with legal obligations and avoiding a moral injury by ensuring they do not follow an order they believe to be wrong [04:40].

❓ Q: Does a Department of Justice memo guarantee immunity for service members in controversial missions?

✅ A: No. 📝 While the Department of Justice may draft a memo conferring blanket immunity from federal prosecution, relying entirely on it is a mistake [07:09]. 🚨 The immunity would not shield a service member from possible prosecution by a 🏛️ state court or by a foreign country invoking universal jurisdiction for alleged atrocity crimes committed abroad [07:43].

📚 Book Recommendations

↔️ Similar

🆚 Contrasting

  • The War on Drugs: A Reappraisal by Michael Huemer
    • 📚 A philosophical argument that challenges the legality and morality of the entire war on drugs, proposing a contrasting perspective on whether interdiction and enforcement are ❌ justified.
  • Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution by Philip Bobbitt
    • 📚 Discusses the modes of constitutional argument and how they constrain executive and legislative action, providing a framework for analyzing legal 🧐 deference versus judicial oversight.

🎨 Creatively Related

  • On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman
    • 📚 Relates to the concerns of moral injury mentioned in the video by exploring the psychological impact of violence on 🧠 military personnel, regardless of legality [04:40].
  • Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging by Sebastian Junger
    • 📚 Tangentially relates by exploring the relationship between soldiers and society and the difficulty of returning home, which touches on the civil-military divide seen in domestic 🇺🇸 deployments.

Graph View

Backlinks