In stark contrast to lawless, sadistic, unAmerican U.S. Senators like far-right-Republican Tom Cotton (who insanely said “the first strike, the second strike, and the third and the fourth strike on September 2nd were entirely lawful and needful, and they were exactly what we’d expect our military commanders to do”) check out what former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, a conservative Republican, had to say yesterday on WRVA about the U.S. military strikes against boats in the Caribbean.
“What is the right use of authority and power by the United States of America in what they want to do? We all know that if you have a drug dealer in this country, you arrest them and you try them and you give them a trial. It’s inconvenient; it’d be nice just to take them off to the corner and shoot them, but that’s not what we do. That is the essence of liberty and that’s the way you started this conversation. You said you were happy being back here because the US is a is a country with freedom. Well, freedom is all based on the rule of law. If you don’t have a rule of law, then no citizen is safe from the government and that’s why the constitution was set up the way that it was.
So, you know, if you start on that basis, what do we know about this? Well, you know, this activity in the Caribbean against presumed drug people is based upon secret information. I guess the assumption is that our intelligence people know about all this, and so they’re targeting these boats. But the question is, does the government of the United States have the authority to do that? Well, it all stems, I think, from the 9/11 authority granted by the Congress to attack terrorists. And that was specific and easy at that point. They’d blown up the World Trade Center. And as you remember, I was governor during that time. We understand all that. But then it’s been mutated over the years to the point now where we’re saying okay, well, people who are running drugs, however remotely by the way. This is nowhere near the United States you understand. They are targeted for military action, the use of the United States Navy. that’s questionable right now as to whether you can mutate that authority over to give the government authority to just use the military for this kind of thing. You know, without really some specific authority from the Congress.
And then there’s the second issue. What’s brought all this to the front? Well, what brought all this to the front is the fact that one of these boats was blown up and there were survivors that were still in the water and survivors that finally…I don’t know the facts, maybe could have gotten back onto the boat. The boat was on fire. And then at that point, international law says that you don’t just kill people who are in the water who are survivors of a military attack. The Nazis used to do that during World War II and they had U-Boat commanders tried and executed for that kind of war crime. So the question is is this a war crime? And if there’s a war, then arguably this is a war crime. It’s not arguably; this is actually the example that’s used in the military code of justice with respect to teaching people about war crimes. If it’s not a war down there, then it’s a straight-up murder. And I just think we have to be thoughtful about what the proper authority is in a free society if we’re going to start to engage the military in law enforcement activities.
One more thing and I’ll stop. When I was a soldier, we were trained to be lethal. You understand that. But there was a time when we had training because of this very topic, where they brought us in and they trained us with respect to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, where our American soldiers were ordered by Lieutenant Calley to murder an entire village including women and children. And we were taught at that point that that was an illegal order, that we have, the uniform code of military justice makes it imperative that so that you not follow illegal orders. Now that raises a real problem here. One thing you know for a fact is that if you disobey a commander’s orders you will be court martialed and probably sent to prison. Then at that point you have to prove it was an illegal order. How does a soldier on the spot do that…So now where are we? Well this admiral who ordered this strike, he probably should have known this was a war crime that he was committing. If that’s the case, he had a duty to say something about it.”
So the thing is, none of this should be in any way/shape/form debatable or controversial, as it’s all just basic rule-of-law, military-code-of-justice material that literally everyone in the military should be aware of. So why are so many in the media, and so many Republicans, either defending the indefensible or acting like it’s confusing, difficult to figure out, etc? Perhaps they might like to chat with conservative Republicans who served in the U.S. military and who understand the law (Gilmore graduated from UVA Law School in 1977, also served as Attorney General of Virginia)? Would even that change their minds, which apparently are warped from being in a deranged cult led by a draft dodger and criminal (Trump) who’s utterly contemptuous of the constitution, rule of law, American values, the U.S. military, etc? Or would that be too much to ask these days?
Anyway, thanks to Jim Gilmore for demonstrating integrity, respect for the constitution and rule of law, etc., and for articulating that on the radio – right-wing radio, no less. Now, if we only had a few more Republicans with Jim Gilmore’s courage, as opposed to the 99% of Virginia Republicans who are either staying silent on what Trump and Hegseth are up to, or are actively SUPPORTING it. Ugh.
