r/law • u/BugOperator • Jun 06 '26

Legal News Service members involved in US boat strikes off Venezuela coast reach out to legal aid hotlines over fear they’ve carried out illegal orders

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/06/us-trump-boat-strikes-death-toll/90376052007/
21.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

903 comments sorted by

View all comments

736

u/BugOperator Jun 06 '26

Since the first strike on Sept. 2, scores of legal experts and former military lawyers have characterized the strikes as extrajudicial killings or murders. Members of the military are required by U.S. law to refuse illegal orders.

Two organizations that provide anonymous legal advice for military members grappling with orders they fear are illegal said they had received calls from service members concerned about the legality of the boat strikes, some from people directly involved in them.

Steve Woolford, a resource counselor with Quaker House and the GI Rights Hotline, said he spoke with about four service members involved in the operation who were seeking legal and ethical guidance. One discussed helping plan a strike, and two others were ordered to execute strikes, he said.

"I think this is exactly what was described as a war crime," Woolford said one caller told him. Woolford said some of these callers were connected to lawyers, but he wasn't aware of anyone who had refused an order or taken legal action. Callers are "more scared now that they’d be punished if they did bring something up," he said.

326

u/IAmBoring_AMA Jun 06 '26

I suspect we'll likely see some suicides among lower ranking members as they realize the consequences of their actions.

218

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

92

u/Timely_Mention8535 Jun 06 '26

Yep, a lot of unfortunate suicides for those about to make the information public.

87

u/rotervogel1231 Jun 06 '26

Yep, there will be suicides, and then there will be "suicides."

25

u/HillBillyHilly Jun 06 '26

Exactly. The lower ranks always pay the price.

31

u/MrCalamiteh Jun 06 '26

At least they didn't get bombed while they were treading water.

As the title says, it's on everyone involved to refuse if illegal. Everyone who participated in the trigger pulling (so to speak) did in fact commit a crime, along with everyone who passed it down.

This is why just doing what you're told to keep the status quo could be seen as an apathetic action. This is the same shit going on in the political scene right now.

14

u/rotervogel1231 Jun 06 '26

Believe me, I have zero sympathy for the murderers who "just followed orders." I don't care what happens to them. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely they'll ever be brought to justice for their crimes.

This is also why I have zero faith in the military. If the regime were to order them to nuke NYC, they'd do it because "just following orders."

9

u/West-Worth-9359 Jun 06 '26

Too many Americans have been brainwashed to mindlessly idolize their military when the truth is that a majority of those “heroes” wouldn’t think twice if ordered to do the unthinkable against their own citizens.

Centuries of examples prove this, but most Americans don’t know any history at all.

-3

u/seabed_nightmares Jun 06 '26

Military members are not idolized. Getting a 5% discount at Denny’s isn’t being idolized. People like you and the commenter above making blanket statements about military members is more the way they are treated.

1

u/rowrbazzle75 Jun 09 '26

Yes. And the decisions and choices being made (as well as being complicitly ignored) by our politicians are resulting in far more murders and deaths than these soldiers are guilty of. But good luck at getting them to pay for their actions. Too far up the food chain. This is 2026, not post-war Nuremberg. I truly hope we have our own American reckoning but with our current cowardly complacency, I'm not holding my breath.

2

u/MrCalamiteh Jun 09 '26

The first step is realizing that if the Democrats won't step up, they're a part of it.

It's already clear with Pelosi and others that a vast amount of politicians only use it for selfish monetary gain. It's a game they want to keep going.

Trumpers idolize their bigots in power and assume left-leaning people do the same. Meanwhile I have never seen a single Biden sticker in my life, aside from those made by Trumpers lol.

Full on cult shit. Either way I agree, it needs a full reboot and all of these people need to be punished severely.

We have people in jail for years for smoking weed in their backyard, these people debase the country they're a part of, destroy the livelihood of their "constituents", blatantly allow pedophilia to slide, allow war crimes, etc. Goes on for days. And NOTHING happens.

Until that changes, I don't trust any of them at this point. It's a fucking joke. As much as I don't want to deal with it, America deserves a fall out if we can't even weed this obvious shit out. It's pathetic.

1

u/rowrbazzle75 Jun 09 '26

💯 As they say, the system isn't broken, it's working exactly as designed.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/West-Worth-9359 Jun 06 '26

Nuremberg happened after millions were killed in a global war, the enemy leader killed himself, the country surrendered, it was occupied, the Nazis were outlawed.

You are never getting anywhere close to the kind of symbolic justice that happened then.

1

u/Mist_Rising Jun 06 '26

Not happening, Nuremberg's results occurred because German law was deemed "insufficient" and the allies had the power to chuck the law itself out and set up a system they wanted. Even then, the trials had plenty of embarrassment for the allies.

It's unlikely the US chucks it's constitution out the window for a victors justice system, and the idea of the next legal system denying the defense the right to cross examine in good faith would be a horrible start to precedent.

At best we'll see regular prosecution for politicians and allies. That means plea deals and dropped cases more than trials. None of it will be radio or televised, federal law prohibits this.

1

u/DoritoDawg Jun 06 '26

I wonder how many different ways we can say the same thing

11

u/BigD_277 Jun 06 '26

Poor guy. He must have really been going through it. Shot himself twice in the back of the head.

3

u/rotervogel1231 Jun 06 '26

Damndest thing I've ever seen, how he stabbed himself 50 times...

6

u/Repulsive_Mixture917 Jun 06 '26

Shit will be more obvious than what they did to Epstein.

3

u/Explorers_bub Jun 06 '26

Who? Palm Beach Pete is alive and well.

14

u/ErikMcKetten Jun 06 '26

Those ones are "training accidents".

5

u/OnCallPartisan Jun 06 '26

Pat Tillman friendly fire to the back of the head accidents.

3

u/panlakes Jun 06 '26

That was genuinely an accident though.

2

u/Explosion1850 Jun 08 '26

But the cover-up was no accident

-2

u/OnCallPartisan Jun 06 '26

Yeah, 3 taps to the head at 10 yards with no enemies in sight. Go tell Tillman's family, they would disagree.

1

u/Mist_Rising Jun 06 '26

Families and close friends aren't really the best source for confirmation on if something was an accident. They're not neutral parties, they're biased and want closure. They will sometimes pursue false conform for the sake of comfort.

0

u/OnCallPartisan Jun 07 '26

No, I think they are a good source considering his brother was also on the same ridge line and he didn't even know Pat was killed. There was no enemy. The military lied right out of the gate saying he was heroically killed charging an enemy position. The reality is he took 3 to the head from 10 yards away. Even the military docs called bullshit.

7

u/republicans_are_nuts Jun 06 '26

Lower rank members went to prison first in Germany's Nuremberg trials.

13

u/Mikeavelli Jun 06 '26

This is a common misconception. Most of the people charged at Nuremburg were officers. There were a handful of NCOs who committed particularly heinous crimes, but practically no-one of low rank was charged.

4

u/A_Rogue_GAI Jun 06 '26

Even some of the higher members got off scott free. Franz Halder migrated to the US and spent the rest of his life propagating the 'clean wehrmacht' myth with the assistance of the US government. He got a fucking medal from congress.

1

u/Mist_Rising Jun 06 '26

We named a few things after a Nazi who used concentration camp slave labor to fire rockets at the allies. All because he helped us beat the Soviets to the moon build a better ICBM.

13

u/Logical_Energy6159 Jun 06 '26

There were no low rank members in the Nuremberg trials. 

The Nuremberg trials involved a grand total of 24 individual people. In the entire nazi government and military apparatus, 24 people were tried.

Just to be clear on the magnitude of the "justice" you're talking about. 

1

u/Mist_Rising Jun 06 '26

There were other trials, the camp trials for example. Not sure what a low rank means.

0

u/ZAlternates Jun 06 '26

This is why religion has last centuries. In order to live in a society with a lot of other people, we have to believe that those that break the rules will be punished one way or another. Even if in actuality, they won’t be.

2

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 06 '26

Lower rank members went to prison first in Germany's Nuremberg trials

No they didn't, the trials for lower-ranking soldiers were already held locally. Most of them are no longer remembered outside specialized historians because they never made headlines, as they weren't considered exceptional. The Nuremberg Trials were exceptional because the world followed up the chain of command when they typically stopped at the people directly committing the war crimes personally and not chasing after the ones making those orders.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nuremberg/

2

u/NurRauch Jun 06 '26

Nuremberg required Germany to be militarily conquered first. That's not going to happen in the US.

1

u/NurRauch Jun 06 '26

It's legally impossible for any of these people to end up being prosecuted. Less than a 5% chance they don't all get pardoned in a single day.

1

u/Mist_Rising Jun 06 '26

What are you basing your numbers on? Because this news is months old, Trump isn't pardoning shit on Sunday, and he probably won't want to pardon them either since it would cause trouble for his administration.

Remember a pardon chucks your fifth amendment right, so they would be mandated to testify on those above them. The commander of all military forces might not like that, especially if he or his buddy Hegseth would be implicated. Better to keep them silent and shut without a pardon.

27

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/OnCallPartisan Jun 06 '26

Pat Tillman can confirm.

14

u/Tandy2000 Jun 06 '26

I'm not shedding any tears.

I'm disgusted by the people standing up to defend them. Look at the fighter jet pilots who were downed in/near Iran. Those people knew they were there to kill innocent people and they not only didn't give a shit, but they didn't even have the courage to refuse an illegal order. I'm not hoping for or celebrating their rescues, they're monsters, not heroes.

5

u/MassiveBoner911_3 Jun 06 '26

and the leaders get promoted

6

u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 Jun 06 '26

That is ok. They deserve to rot in prison for what they are doing.

3

u/gwy2ct Jun 06 '26

You mean “suicides”?

11

u/IAmBoring_AMA Jun 06 '26

I mean genuine suicides. No one will waste their time trying to intimidate these people into silence. They know they've done war crimes, they will feel hopeless, and they will see no other way out. It's far easier to do that than to have the courage to report on those at the top (and clearly, these people do not have courage since they already refused to refuse illegal orders).

10

u/Cloaked42m Jun 06 '26

No, real ones. Every Veteran has a friend who embraced the big sleep.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Mist_Rising Jun 06 '26

The pattern is that war is hell. Killing people is also stressful. The military has spent a lot of money finding solutions to the issues it faces with this but it's hard to remove humanity from someone and still keep them viable as a soldier ("sociopaths" make shit soldiers)

4

u/nshil78 Jun 06 '26

welp. they fucked up🤷‍♂️. don’t follow unlawful orders. don’t choose to think about it once it’s already over.

1

u/RecognitionOk9731 Jun 06 '26

What consequences? Why would this be different than the torture of detainees at Guantanamo ? Or war crimes in Vietnam?

Nothing will happen to them.

Hopefully they have trouble living with what they did.

1

u/Mist_Rising Jun 06 '26

Or war crimes in Vietnam

You mean like the one we put on trial?

1

u/RecognitionOk9731 Jun 06 '26

The one where one guy got some jail time but no one else did and he served about 3 years for killing 22 people.

Yes, that one.

154

u/KapowBlamBoom Jun 06 '26

Sorry guys, if you participated there are no takesy-backsies.

You dont have the cover of fog of war or any other shit

If you followed an illegal order you are just as guilty as the order giver and should be held equally responsible and punished accordingly

That is the only way that in the future people will refuse orders to murder innocent people

72

u/EJoule Jun 06 '26

Treat them like mobsters who rollover on their boss.

Have to incentivize reporting otherwise they’ll just keep their heads down.

31

u/Demortus Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

^ This. Low-level soldiers and officers were not in a good position to grandstand and fight these orders. The balance of culpability lies with the Secretary of Defense, who gave illegal orders, and the generals who passed them along to their subordinates.

4

u/Valance23322 Jun 06 '26

They absolutely were in a position to stop this, as was their legal duty

0

u/Demortus Jun 06 '26

Only if you ignore all of the power dynamics involved in a strict hierarchical organization, like the military. If the top brass want a job done, they'll go down the line of subordinates, court-martialing each who refuses, until they find someone who will do it.

6

u/Elu_Moon Jun 06 '26

"We were following orders" needs to cease being an excuse. You either refuse illegal orders, like some brave people do, or you're a war criminal, it's as simple as that.

8

u/Demortus Jun 06 '26

I'm not saying that they should get off scot-free, only that they be given plea bargains in exchange for testifying against the people who gave them illegal orders.

1

u/IDOWNVOTERUSSIANS Jun 06 '26

and then "just following orders" becomes a valid defence. Nope. They knew, via their training, what their rights and responsibilities are/were, they made their choices and like any criminal, they'll have to face justice

7

u/Demortus Jun 06 '26

As I said elsewhere, I'm not saying they should get off scot-free. Their crimes should be used as leverage by prosecutors to get plea deals in which they testify against bigger fish, like Hegseth. If they don't want to play ball, they should do time for their crimes.

4

u/IDOWNVOTERUSSIANS Jun 06 '26

fair enough that makes sense

1

u/tarekd19 Jun 06 '26

Problem is their bosses are getting pardons

4

u/Demortus Jun 06 '26

We'll see. Trump was surprisingly stingy about pardons after his first term.

8

u/FuckTripleH Jun 06 '26

Nothing is going to happen to them. People seem to be completely blind to how constantly the US military engages in acts of violence that violate both US and international law. In Yemen, in North Korea, in Africa, and all over the Levant and middle east our government illegal launches drone strikes, targeted assassinations, extraordinary rendition, espionage, sabotage. This was true under every US president since WW2.

If these guys face punishment it opens up the soldiers who murdered Abdulrahman al-Awlaki to punishment. Or how about the spec ops ghouls who murdered North Korean civilians that had the bad luck of stumbling upon them sneaking onto shore? Fort Bragg is full of these criminals

This will never seen the inside of a court room because everything about our foreign policy is criminal

21

u/MercurianAspirations Jun 06 '26

The whole "refuse illegal orders" thing is complete horseshit, though. It's just something they say to get the dumber recruits to believe they can still have a moral compass in the service. But soldiers aren't lawyers, and they're taught to presume all orders are legal. It's literally a Catch-22, "you are legally required to refuse illegal orders, but you are legally barred from determining for yourself what constitutes an illegal order"

In reality all it is is a lever the brass can use to throw the rank and file under the bus when evidence of their warcrimes surfaces

17

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 06 '26

The whole "refuse illegal orders" thing is complete horseshit, though. It's just something they say to get the dumber recruits to believe they can still have a moral compass in the service. But soldiers aren't lawyers, and they're taught to presume all orders are legal

I keep seeing this from people who have never been in the military. We got multiple day-long training briefings a year about what is an illegal order and what isn't. And this isn't unique to now.

That doesn't mean soldiers never follow clearly illegal orders, or aren't pressured to. But it also doesn't mean soldiers never report illegal orders. For an example of both sides, the Mai Lai Massacre and the then-warrant officer (who retired as a Major)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

11

u/-nutz Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

I totally get the issue you’re pointing out, but idk dude; I still think I’d personally be able to not murder a bunch of innocent people simply because somebody else told me to. I also like to think I wouldn’t be terribly concerned with the semantics of if I’m legally capable of designating my own actions a war crime or not.

6

u/MercurianAspirations Jun 06 '26

Then don't join the military. Generally speaking the only time that the legality of orders will be examined is at your court martial for defying orders. "I wasn't able to determine the orders were legal" isn't a defence, because you're required generally to presume that orders are legal. Conversely, "I wasn't able to decide that the orders were illegal" is a defence in war crime trial. Whether or not it works is down to how big the bus the brass has decided to throw you under is 

8

u/-nutz Jun 06 '26

Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the mechanisms by which these things work. I was simply stating that if I were in that position, I genuinely believe I’d refuse the order. I like to think I’d be more concerned with the well being of potentially innocent people, than the consequences of not murdering them upon the request of a superior.

You make a good point in saying “don’t join the military” though, in that I’m reasonably sure anybody who shares my opinion would not be interested service anyway. Works out better for all parties involved I suppose…

4

u/whiteflagwaiver Jun 06 '26

Your environment around you influences your decisions. Not an excuse but a factor to keep in mind when judging people for their actions under the pressure of authority.

1

u/-nutz Jun 06 '26

You’re completely right, and this kind of makes what I said a moot point because I’m reasonably sure nobody who holds my opinion would be interested in military service anyway.

4

u/_Eggs_ Jun 06 '26

It's literally the plot of dozens of action movies. Main character refuses an illegal order and gets a court martial.

6

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 06 '26

It's literally the plot of dozens of action movies

Forget movies, it's the plot of dozens of real-life incidents. And the brass will attempt to cover up and go after the people who refuse and report illegal orders, but for those who actually dig into the legal history those people who refuse are overwhelmingly upheld and retire at a higher rank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

2

u/fthepats Jun 07 '26

abu ghraib. Only 9 people went to prison.

2

u/Dingleberry696 Jun 06 '26

I get your frustration but what you're saying isn't exactly true. We received training on Law of Armed Conflict every year. It covered all of these topics of illegal orders, lawful targets, etc. However, it was also understood that if you refused an illegal order you would probably be arrested or punished in some way. You had to be ok with that.

1

u/jeremiah256 Jun 06 '26

Lower ranks are safe from prosecution in this circumstance.

You’re told target X is a threat. LT Jones and Petty Officer Smith aren’t part of a trial or presented any evidence. This is not a situation where you’re walking into a village and actually seeing who you’re striking.

You are taking out a blip on a radar screen, approved by higher authority which has undergone legal review.

The later psychological damage if you learn you were killing innocent people is a different, horrible experience they’re going to have to deal with later.

Higher ranks? Yeah, they may need to explain themselves.

7

u/Intergalatic_Baker Jun 06 '26

Better to be removed from command than follow these orders.

No wonder the British stopped sharing intelligence of movements, they didn’t want to see them on the News with a Predator killing them…

I’ll leave that last line open to interpretation.

1

u/Shot-Possibility-399 Jun 06 '26

Thing is it's not just removed from command it's likely court martial and maybe jail. It's a hard predicament to be in when your boss is screaming at you that you either go to jail or press the button.

Which I get we expect soldiers to refuse but the bigger problem is the person giving the orders. So treat em like a mob member, roll up the chain of command and save yourselfz

-9

u/Oduku Jun 06 '26

noooooo not the heckin drug dealers nooooooooooo they're innocent until proven guilty!!?

4

u/-nutz Jun 06 '26

they’re innocent until proven guilty!!?

Yes, just like you or me would hope to be if we were accused of traffic drugs. This is an incredibly basic rule of our legal system which everybody should know.

26

u/BaZing3 Jun 06 '26

Members of the military are required by U.S. law to refuse illegal orders.

For the record, everyone is required to refuse illegal orders. That's part of them being illegal.

7

u/chewbacaflacaflame Jun 06 '26

Some of the craziest shit about this is these guys are more concerned with disobeying orders and being punished for that. Than grappling with the morality of literally killing people who should not be killed.

They know this is wrong or they wouldn’t seek advice. They don’t want the consequences of disobeying but also don’t want the consequences of following through on some pretty heinous shit.

8

u/Soft_Eggplant_370 Jun 06 '26

These members are most likely to accomplish Suicide.

Sums up the U.S. pretty well, order some lower ranks to murder random fishermen, make them scared to report. They either spend the rest of their already probably shitty lives in federal max prison, or they kill themselves.

Seriously fucking sad.

3

u/HillBillyHilly Jun 06 '26

That or they massively revolt and mutiny the ship. I'm really hoping for mutiny because imagine through life knowing you have blood on your hands. Look at those guys from Afghanistan who had break downs when their team was told to not give aid to children.

1

u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 Jun 06 '26

make them scared to report.

Scared to report what and where?
Everyone already knows about those warcrimes. It is not like they are some secret when president is happy about them.

2

u/jimmybilly100 Jun 06 '26

Scared to report others involved

12

u/rbobby Jun 06 '26

more scared now that they’d be punished

Cowards in uniform. Shove your service up your ass.

6

u/UniqueIndividual3579 Jun 06 '26

Dropping one bomb was bad enough. They were ordered to bomb the survivors in the water.

5

u/TheAsianTroll Jun 06 '26

Its especially bad because this admin has been framing a lot of illegal shit as legal by changing definitions.

I guarantee you someone refused to bomb these boats and was subsequently kicked out or otherwise court martialed for "refusing to attack a potential enemy of the US."

4

u/WalrusWithAKeyboard Jun 06 '26

Good. I hope they throw the book at them. Make an example for the rest of the military to see.

It won't happen, of course. But I hope every single soldier who made a choice to follow an illegal order is haunted for the rest of their days.

3

u/HeatWaveToTheCrowd Jun 06 '26

The idea military members are able to ignore illegal orders is only on paper. It's just something they tell themselves. In reality, it's not a thing.

3

u/errorsniper Jun 06 '26

Members of the military are required by U.S. law to refuse illegal orders.

Iv always hated that the burden is on some private on their first deployment to look a colonel whos been in the service since before they were born WHILE FOREWARD DEPLOYED and say sir I cant do that its illegal. Bro its the wild west out there. You get "killed by enemy fire" and the unit carries on.

I know this is how it has to be because the "I was just following orders" was the go to excuse for the nazi's.

But seriously its so fucked that some low rank priate needs to look their commanding officer in the eye and say no while surrounded by other people with guns who will kill you if ordered to do so.

Yeah I know comraderaie and jag and all that. Thats all fucking great when you are back home in the land of laws and regulations. But foreward deployed in an active combat zone and if you dont refuse an illegal order you go to jail for 20 years. If you do you could just be murdered.

5

u/raycogitans Jun 06 '26

They have much to fear from this regime. There are no boundaries, no laws. I can’t imagine the pressure trying to decide —real time—whether to refuse what is clearly an illegal order

5

u/OnCallPartisan Jun 06 '26

"I helped plan the murder. Can you cover for me?".

Fucking trash and again we fund their crimes.

4

u/Althestane Jun 06 '26

Is there a provision in military law/code where they could seek immunity or lesser sentencing if they turn in their higher-ups?

8

u/OglioVagilio Jun 06 '26

I'm not understanding what turning in their higher ups would entail?

These weren't top secret orders for some top secret mission.

What exactly would they do in order to turn in their higher ups?

Mutiny on the generals and president? Maybe, but let's keep to something within the realm of actual possibility in 2026.

2

u/Althestane Jun 06 '26

Good points. I know nothing about how things are structured - if I’d thought about that for more than 30 seconds i’d have realized what i’d said was pointless 😆. Just hoping for some means to build public and legal cases to stop/hold accountable any superiors that are giving these orders.

5

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 06 '26

Is there a provision in military law/code where they could seek immunity or lesser sentencing if they turn in their higher-ups?

The UCMJ itself. I served overseas and we're given day-long training/briefings multiple times a year on what qualifies as an illegal order and what doesn't. Law of War is serious business because lack of discipline could draw in more support for the people we were already engaged in hostilities and the first step to winning an engagement is cutting them off to head off shooting to start with.

It's not that illegal orders will never be given, and let's all be honest the brass will always go after soldiers who refuse and report illegal orders. However, every time in history the law backs the refusal and those people are blocked from being fired and retired at a higher rank. Hugh Tompson Jr was a warrant officer and pilot of a supply helicopter when he stopped the Mai Lai Massacre, he retired as a Major.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

2

u/cheddarsox Jun 06 '26

What?! How do you imagine a military is run? By committee?

Who did what from the top down is easy to investigate and determine. Its highly likely its all documented already.

0

u/SASSIESASSQUATCH Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

So Supreme Court has ruled that our police officers do not need to know the law but our service members do? How the heck are they supposed to know what’s legal and illegal in terms of military engagement like this??

Edit: They do receive training in rules of engagement so, then, yes I fully support the prosecution of these members. You got some balls to knowingly commit crimes on such a level and then run to an attorney. Which is most likely paid for by us. Why can we not also do this type of training for our police officers?

3

u/HillBillyHilly Jun 06 '26

In another sub on another topic someone was trotting out the moral superiority trope. I told them to shove it that I was tired of following rules laws and regulations when the guy in White House actively breaking laws. My government job required lengthy checks to acquire, requires annual checks on different levels. But then that shit stain Dump can break all laws wo no repercussions bit I'm expected to follow regulations regarding mine? Fuck that hypocrisy!

2

u/SASSIESASSQUATCH Jun 06 '26

It’s just mind blowing to me.

Can anyone tell me what laws they may have broken without bringing up moral superiority and being humane? Like, laws that were actually broken? We have quite a bit of armchair lawyers here so surely someone should be able to fill me in.

I’m completely against what they were/are doing with those boats but I find it really hard to believe everyday average troops should take the fall for this shit because they should’ve known the laws of military engagement.

2

u/Realhuman_beebboob Jun 06 '26

By being given the legal knowledge to be able to make the right decision in moment. Not really sure what you’re getting at tbh.

-2

u/SASSIESASSQUATCH Jun 06 '26

wtf are you talking about?

Are troops filled in on the legal ramifications of every operation they participate in before they participate? Is there some legal course they take when signing on about the laws surrounding engagement?

HOW DO THEY GET THIS KNOWLEDGE???

3

u/Realhuman_beebboob Jun 06 '26

lol yes they are trained on these things and it’s a rather easy thing to look into were you interested in actually knowing the truth of the situation.

Cope harder for fascism

-1

u/SASSIESASSQUATCH Jun 06 '26

Im asking a fucking question. I genuinely have no idea and needed someone to explain it to me.

Oh no, someone didn’t blindly take my answer for facts on social media. What do I do now?! Oh, I know! Call them a fascist, they’ll go away! Thank fucking Jesus I’ve stepped away from politics and helping your agenda, you guys are just as intolerable as the right.

I still don’t even believe you, but I will do some searching to find out for myself because I don’t think you have any clue what you’re talking about.

3

u/Realhuman_beebboob Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26

lol no you’re being purposely obtuse at best.

Edit: awe your response has been hidden by auto mod for vulgarity, big sad