First, the law, from this site, about military law, the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Millitary Justice:
https://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2025/f ... al-orders/
The reader can find this paragraph describing some scenarios about illegal orders:
Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”
It is rather clear. It does apply to civilians, not just protesters.
Continue with Amendment 5 of our Constitution.
No person shall be… , nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ….
There may be other laws that prohibit such behavior, but for now these are sufficient.
It might be exceedingly important to note that both quotes refer to people, without regard to citizenship or country. Every person on earth, outside of military conflict, merits that protection from the United States and the U.S. military.
Now consider the 70 or 80 people, off the coast of Columbia that have been killed. Likely to be more by the time you are reading this. No evidence has been provided to indicated they are anything but civilians. There have been no statements indicating they are part of any military. They are persons who have lost their lives without “due process of law.”
Consider the environment in which these people were deprived of life.
(Side note, I don't know how to further indent the lines beginning with the letters a and b.)
- 1. The United States is not at war with Columbia.
2. The president cannot unilaterally declare a war.
a. It is true that the U.S., under previous presidents, has conducted war in several places under questionable circumstances. Bad behavior in the past does not justify bad behavior in the present. This can be argued.
3. The personal on those destroyed boats are not military, they are civilians.
a. I am not positive about this, but it seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
4. They have not attacked U.S. resources.
5. They have not attacked U.S. military personal.
6. When they are killed, they are not in the process of directly killing anyone.
7. They are not given an opportunity to surrender to proper authority.
8. No proof has been offered to the public that these people are part of a drug trafficking organization.
a. I have heard some comments that some were fishermen.
b. Presuming they are traffickers, that does not provide carte blanche to kill them.
9. The UCMJ does prohibit the killing of civilians.
The attack was probably carried out by a helicopter. This appears obvious as the perspective of the target is not changing as something, probably a missile, destroys the boat. The pilot of that helicopter is a probably junior flight officer. At the bottom of the officer chain of command. For that officer to disobey an order to shoot that missile would be a life changing event. He, or she, is not likely to disobey that order. We need to go up the chain of command. We can be reasonably sure that he was given that order without the caution of being required to disobey unlawful orders.
Next up the officer chain of probability the Weapons Officer. He is at least two layers below the command officer. Again, to disobey the order would be a life changing event.
From here it goes to the Captain of the ship and the Admiral in in charge of the fleet. The exact steps are unknow to me, but it all works out the same. They are more responsible, but have been given orders from more senior officers.
Skipping several layers of command, it winds up at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the JCS, the senior officers of all the military. No military person is of higher rank. They receive the order from Secretary of Defense Hegseth. Hegseth gave then an illegal order. They darn well should have known that order was illegal. They were the first military personnel who chose to follow an illegal order. That is to say orders, multiple orders. They are very much complicit.
The video should have specifically targeted the JCS.
But responsibility does not end there. Hegseth passed on an illegal order. After hearing much about the topic he still seems to claim the order was valid. According the UCMJ and the Constitution, the order was illegal. But he committed an illegal action by passing it on. He should have been mentioned in the video.
The Secretary of Defense should have been mentioned.
Then it goes to donnyBoy. The top of the chain. If he did not receive advice from his cabinet, and Hegseth in particular, then all of them are complicit. As has been said, The Buck Stops Here. donnyBoy initiated the illegal order. He is the most responsible. In my opinion the primary target of the video should be him.