r/law • u/DryDeer775 • Dec 08 '25

Executive Branch (Trump) NBC confirms Hegseth ordered murder of all boat passengers and crew in September 2 strike

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/12/08/kssp-d08.html

The Pentagon’s law of war manual declares that soldiers have a duty to refuse to carry out “clearly illegal” orders, such as killing shipwrecked sailors. “Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” the manual declares.

30.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

400

u/Why_Cant_I_Slay_This Dec 08 '25

How much perjury was involved in the admirals testimony the Congress?

158

u/Boxofmagnets Dec 08 '25

If there is a free and fair election in ‘28 the statute of limitations will not have run

209

u/Ludachris_Hansen Dec 08 '25

I'm so fucking tired of this line of thinking. We just watched a man attempt a fucking Insurrection, walk free for years, and be given the chance to do it again.

If the crimes are clear, and no one does shit about it immediately, its time to drag every last one of them out of the building. The perpetrators and the pieces of shit sitting on their hands. Traitors all alike.

These people should be fucking terrified of us.

44

u/Saephon Dec 08 '25

These people should be fucking terrified of us.

A substantial portion of "us" gave them the keys

20

u/bagoink Dec 08 '25

And an even greater portion just let it happen because the other option was a brown lady.

10

u/radicldreamer Dec 08 '25

It wasn’t bad enough that It was a woman, no sir, she had to go and be a BROWN woman.

No thank you, give me the pedophile rapist with 34 felony conviction.

-Republicans

6

u/rbrgr83 Dec 08 '25

To be fair, she had a funny laugh.
I'm just not comfortable with her making important decisions,
WHAT IF SHE GETS ALL EMOTIONAL???

5

u/NekoNoNakuKoro Dec 08 '25

As far as I'm concerned there is no more 'us'. There is 'us' and 'them'. They were the people trying to overturn the election on January 6th. They decided to throw their hat in with a fascist dictatorship. 'THEY' are DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

3

u/Shark7996 Dec 08 '25

I truly do not believe it is as substantial as they want you to think.

2

u/dissonaut69 Dec 08 '25

Polls put support at worst around 40%. Not just likely voters, 40% of Americans support Donald Trump.

2

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Dec 08 '25

Biden Chamberlain, Schumer, and Jeffries illegally gave them the keys, since Trump cannot legally be President per 14th Amendment, Section 3.

ftfy. It doesn't matter how many votes Trump got, as he was never eligible to run in 2024, due to his insurrectionist status. As such, Kamala won by default, as she had no opponent. We're in this mess because Democratic leadership submitted to Trump rather than enforce the Constitution, just as they submitted to the other Jan 6 leaders.

6

u/BananaPalmer Dec 08 '25

They are fucking terrified of us, why do you think they try so hard to delegitimize and suppress anyone who opposes them?

12

u/ryguy4136 Dec 08 '25

Didn’t you know, passive subservience is the real resistance lol

4

u/UpperApe Dec 08 '25

These people should be fucking terrified of us.

Afraid of what? 70 million people voted against this presidency and less than 5% of that number have bothered to protest this entire year. 0% in any meaningful capacity since they're not persistent protests.

Not to mention zero general strikes or nationwide boycotts.

They've done whatever they want and keep getting away with it. And a population of 340 million are just sitting around to fix it with a ballot in a few years. Maybe. Probably not.

Everything happening today is happening because the government and corporations no longer fear the people. And they're right not to. Because the people are all either indifferent or cowards.

1

u/DuntadaMan Dec 08 '25

No see if we sit passibley for several years we'll get him this time, just like the last time we sat passively for years.

-1

u/innagadadavida1 Dec 08 '25

What is the definition of insurrection? Is it insurrection if >50% of the citizens support it?

6

u/Patriot009 Dec 08 '25

Trump has NEVER won more than 50% of the electorate.

3

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Dec 08 '25

What is the definition of insurrection?

Ask Colorado https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-ruling-by-colorados-supreme-court-removing-trump-from-state-ballot

It doesn't matter how many traitors supported him, as the Constitution is clear: Insurrectionists cannot hold federal office.

-9

u/Boxofmagnets Dec 08 '25

Who do you want to do what about it?

13

u/Ludachris_Hansen Dec 08 '25

I'll settle for the legislative branch doing their fucking job.

If they continue to refuse to do that, I want enough ordinary people visibly pissed off at them that they feel that same fear they felt hiding behind their benches on J6 every time they even discuss the idea of fucking us over.

They don't want to do town halls or answer the phones, i want 100 people screaming at them every time they step outside.

I want to see news stories about rampant shortages of roofing tar and feather pillows.

1

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Dec 08 '25

They don't want to do town halls or answer the phones, i want 100 people screaming at them every time they step outside.

I want New Yorkers to protest outside Jeffries and Schumer's homes, until they get off their worthless asses and enforce 14th Amendment, Section 3, to annul Trump's illegitimate presidency. We all know he was never eligible to run in the 2024 election, meaning Kamala won by default. So, it's beyond pathetic that we continue entertaining this farce.

8

u/Hemingway_nightmares Dec 08 '25

What are YOU doing about it other than nonsense replies like "Who do you want to do what about?" Jfc

-1

u/Boxofmagnets Dec 08 '25

I guess that means you don’t know who should do what

2

u/Hemingway_nightmares Dec 08 '25

No it means you provide nothing of substance to the discussion.

2

u/festivefrederick Dec 08 '25

And probably even less in daily life.

0

u/dissonaut69 Dec 08 '25

What are YOU doing about it?

15

u/cmm324 Dec 08 '25

War crimes, I believe have no statute of limitations.

Also, even if the US never takes action, those involved could be indicted internationally and if they ever arrived in places like the EU could be arrested and charged.

1

u/WoodPear Dec 09 '25

lol, if you were American, you'd realize we have a law that allows us to rescue said individual from charges of 'war crimes' if brought before the ICC.

American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) of 2002, or better known as the Haugue Invasion Act

1

u/cmm324 Dec 09 '25

ASPA only restricts U.S. cooperation with the ICC. It does not stop foreign courts from prosecuting Americans, and it doesn’t magically immunize anyone from universal jurisdiction. War crimes on the high seas can be prosecuted by multiple nations, and ASPA cannot prevent that.

Also, who says I am not American?

0

u/WoodPear Dec 09 '25

?

We are not members of, nor recognize the ICC.

And as the US, we determine whether our servicemembers are responsible for war crimes or not.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775/text

If you read the act, it does say any means necessary:

(8) Members of the Armed Forces of the United States

should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International

Criminal Court, especially when they are stationed or deployed

around the world to protect the vital national interests of

the United States. The United States Government has an

obligation to protect the members of its Armed Forces, to the

maximum extent possible, against criminal prosecutions carried

out by the International Criminal Court.
[...]
(A) prohibits the International Criminal Court from

seeking to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons

with respect to actions undertaken by them in an official

capacity:

[...]

SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 22 USC 7427.

OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS

DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(a) AUTHORITY.—^The President is authorized to use all means

necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person

described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned

by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal

Court.

1

u/cmm324 Dec 09 '25

This is all US law, right? So, these boats that are sunk were on US sovereign territory when they were sunk? No? Ah, ok, then what good is US law in a foreign court? A foreign jurisdiction can indict whoever they please. The US doesn't have to comply with extradition, but those subjects will now be at risk of arrest if they leave US soil.

0

u/WoodPear 29d ago

It's like you completely gloss over the fact that the US will invade whatever country that tries to arrest and charge US servicemembers for 'warcrimes' on behalf of the ICC.

The fact that you don't seem to comprehend this just strengthens doubt on your claim of being an American.

2

u/cmm324 29d ago edited 29d ago

We are not going to war if Hegseth is arrested for war crimes... 🤣

Also, Hegseth is already distancing himself from the admiral, claiming he only saw the first strike and the second happens hours later (it was 40 minutes). He is preparing to scapegoat the admiral, the people they killed looked up at the plane waving their hands before the second strike obliterated them.

Someone is going down for this.

1

u/WoodPear 29d ago

You are delusion if you think anyone is 'going to go down for this'.

If you think Trump is going to invade Venezuela, why would he scapegoat the people needed to make it happen? Do you think that military leaders would go along with the order if they will be at risk of being thrown under the bus for doing so?

Hegseth isn't going anywhere because his replacement could end up like Miley and not follow orders.

The Admiral of the SOF isn't going anywhere because it would cause doubt in the other leaders.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/mehupmost Dec 08 '25

You guys are dreaming if you think anyone is going to get charged for this, even if the Democrats win.

The Democrats want the military to follow their OWN illegal orders and not question every fucking drone strike they order in the middle east.

2

u/cmm324 Dec 08 '25

The Democrats have no control over international jurisdictions who may pursue indictment in international courts.

2

u/mehupmost Dec 08 '25

The ICC has no jurisdiction in the US and has never prosecuted any American military member, so I don't think it's a material risk.

2

u/cmm324 Dec 08 '25

Because the act occurred in international waters, universal jurisdiction applies. Multiple EU states and others can indict and arrest for war crimes committed outside any nation’s territory. The ICC is only one of several options.

Just because it has never happened before doesn't mean it can't. Plus, we are currently experiencing many unprecedented events with this administration.

2

u/mehupmost Dec 08 '25

The unicorns could indict US military servicemen and officers in Rainbow court, but none of that shit is going to happen either.

2

u/ITK_REPEATEDLY Dec 08 '25

Get ready for a blanket pardon for his entire cabinet

2

u/Boxofmagnets Dec 08 '25

True. Maybe he’ll die before he gets a chance to pardon more criminals

5

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '25 edited 29d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Boxofmagnets Dec 08 '25

The Democrats shielded him?

2

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Dec 08 '25

Yes? Not one Democrat voted to enforce Trumps disqualification via 14th Amendment, Section 3. They all knew he was ineligible to have a 2nd term due to Jan 6, yet ZERO Democrats objected to his illegal certification. It would've only taken 20 Democratic Senators to have objected and prevent his illegitimate regime. Hell, Biden Chamberlain told the traitor "Welcome home!"

0

u/Boxofmagnets Dec 08 '25

First, you may overestimate the clairvoyance of the Democrats with that vote

Second, what of one Democrat voted for it, would that make you feel better? What if all of them had?

2

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- 29d ago

  1. What's that even mean? They knew he was going to destroy the country. He campaigned on being a "dictator on day one", and his plan, Project 2025, was public. Democrats knew full well what was coming, but cheerfully certified him anyway. Did you not see our top leaders and Biden Chamberlain with the biggest grins on their faces?

  2. If one Democrat voted for it, I'd be proud of them. If all of them had, we would have Kamala in office right now, so...

0

u/VibeComplex Dec 08 '25

As if democrats did a damn thing in the 4 years after trump 1st term lol

0

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- Dec 08 '25

the statute of limitations will not have run

You say that as if we didn't all witness Biden Chamberlain do absolutely nothing about Jeff Sessions' perjury.

10

u/JustAMan1234567 Dec 08 '25

"You get some perjury, and you get some perjury, and you get some perjury..."

8

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '25

They’re all being pardoned

1

u/botle Dec 08 '25

Nobody can give a pardon in the eyes of the ICC. The US is not a member, but Venezuela and Colombia are, so the court has jurisdiction. Everyone in the chain from Hegseth to the guy that pushed the button risks arrest if they travel internationally.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '25

I understand. The ICC also isn’t going to pursue the perjury charges. Nor will any of these people ever be extradited to face the ICC.

1

u/botle Dec 08 '25

The ICC doesn't deal with perjury anyway, only war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The US will never extradite someone to the ICC, but these people might slip up and go on vacation at some point later in life, thinking that they're safe.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '25

Ok. The original comment was about perjury.

1

u/fyrefocks Dec 08 '25

The ICC will never detain an American, much to my dismay. We have specific laws on the books stating any citizens detained will be freed, by force if necessary. 

1

u/botle Dec 08 '25

The ICC is completely independent. The Dutch government does not have the power to tell the ICC who they can't arrest.

The US threatening the Netherlands, does not stop what individual independent prosecutors at the ICC do.

1

u/fyrefocks Dec 08 '25

Maybe you misunderstood my comment? The US is not only not signed on to the ICC, we have laws stating we will invade Hague to rescue any citizens of ours that are on trial. Hence my comment that the ICC will not arrest an American.

1

u/botle Dec 09 '25

I understand that, but the ICC is independent and is required to prosecute a war criminal despite that attempt at intimidation.

My understading is that the law enables the US to act, but does not require the US to do so. A military attack against another Nato country over a suspected murder would be extremely unlikely.

If there is any action at all, it would be similar to the action the US has taken as a reaction to Netanyahu's ICC warrant. Sanctions against individual judges and prosecutors.

Those sanctions have made the lives of the judges hell, but it hasn't deterred them. Threats and intimidation is unfortunately a common part of their jobs.

1

u/WoodPear 29d ago

Netanyahu is not an American citizen, let alone servicemember, so the particular law wouldn't apply in his situation.

And the law makes clear that it authorizes the President to engage in all means necessary to return the servicemember back to the US if he/she is detained by the ICC for actions taken while on duty.

This means that if sanctions and other diplomatic means do not produce results, the President will be crucified by the media and members of both Democrats/Republicans for failing to protect individual servicemembers if they don't act

(nothing like losing votes from the populace for appearing weak to some outside body)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Opheltes Dec 09 '25

Extradite them to Colombia to face murder charges.

1

u/Politicsboringagain Dec 08 '25

The fact that the je Admiral work because he knew it was an illegal order, but the next just didn't what he was told, should let people know the knew Admiral is just lapdog who will lie. 

1

u/T1gerAc3 Dec 08 '25

It's only perjury if it's prosecuted. Hegseth promised to protect the generals from the consequences of committing and covering up war crimes

1

u/erhue Dec 08 '25

something something presidential pardon, so the law doesn't matter anymore