All Posts

Congress must clarify 'unlawful orders' to safeguard military integrity amidst rising tensions and unclear directives.

Hegseth's attempt to demote Kelly undermines military retirement protections and threatens free speech for veterans.

Summary: This statement raises serious legal concerns regarding a reported December 2025 U.S. covert strike on Venezuelan territory. It questions whether drug trafficking can lawfully be treated as an “armed attack” justifying the use of force under international law and whether the strike unlawfully violated Venezuela’s sovereignty. It further examines whether the operation triggered an international armed conflict, thereby exposing U.S. forces to lawful retaliation and heig

A former military lawyer labels U.S. boat strikes as murder, igniting debates on military ethics and accountability.

Former JAG officer critiques Hegseth's absence during critical military decisions, raising serious accountability concerns.

Experts warn Trump’s admiral may face legal fallout alone over a controversial military strike that raises ethical concerns.

The article explores critical questions Congress must consider regarding the U.S. military's boat strikes targeting drug traffickers.

Margaret Donovan discusses Hegseth's controversial order, raising concerns over potential war crimes and military accountability.

Dan Maurer critiques the Trump admin for ordering a lethal strike on shipwrecked survivors, calling it murder and illegal.

Retired Gen. Steven Lepper discusses military responses to drug trafficking via boats, highlighting security implications.

Inside military command centers, leadership makes critical, real-time decisions during strikes, influencing global security.

After a controversial September 2 strike on a Venezuelan boat, legal experts question military actions and accountability.

Legal debates surrounding the boat strikes highlight critical implications for military lawyers' responsibilities and ethics.

Pentagon's order to kill survivors in a drug-trafficking operation raises questions of legality and moral accountability.

Summary: This statement reviews media reports that U.S. forces conducted strikes on a narcotrafficking vessel and then conducted a second strike on surviving individuals in the water. It explains that, if accurate, such actions would violate both international humanitarian law and U.S. criminal law by targeting persons rendered unable to fight ("hors de combat"). It summarizes applicable Geneva Conventions rules, the Hague prohibition on “no quarter” orders, and relevant U.S.

Trump's threats to court-martial Senator Kelly over troop disobedience claims face major legal challenges ahead.

Summary: This memo outlines the military legal process applicable to potential charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It explains investigative steps, convening authority rules, the prohibition on unlawful influence, and the standards for lawful vs. unlawful orders. It concludes that the actions described in Senator Kelly’s video do not constitute UCMJ offenses based on available information and provides an overview of applicable UCMJ articles, possible charges,

Summary: This memo assesses trends in domestic military deployments and identifies potential future uses of armed forces, including operations against designated “domestic terrorism” threats and military presence near polling places. It outlines legal constraints such as the Posse Comitatus Act, the War Powers Resolution, criminal statutes governing elections, and judicial limits on nationwide injunctions. It recommends congressional action including statutory amendments, fun

Summary: This legal review models the advice a staff judge advocate would provide regarding planned lethal strikes on suspected narcotics-trafficking vessels. It concludes there is no domestic legal basis under the Constitution, federal statutes, or the War Powers Resolution, and no international legal basis under self-defense, armed-conflict law, or the law of targeting. It states that drug smugglers do not qualify as lawful military targets and that lethal strikes could exp

Summary: This memo analyzes the legality and prudence of detailing up to 600 military judge advocates to serve as immigration judges. It outlines concerns under the Posse Comitatus Act, constitutional due-process requirements, risks of perceived bias, and effects on public trust. It also identifies operational risks associated with removing large numbers of JAGs from military units. The memo concludes that the practice is likely unlawful and undermines both due process and mi