Yesterday, I wrote about why Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deserves to be impeached and convicted for his role in in starting an unconstitutional war and perpetrating over 200 cases of outright murder with the "drug boat" strikes.
asserted
Hegseth → write → strikes
Today GOP Rep. Thomas Massie filed impeachment charges in the House of Representatives.
asserted
Massie → file → Representatives
Even if they don't pass in the narrowly Republican-controlled lame duck Congress, they will almost certainly do so in the incoming Democratic one.
asserted
they → pass → one
Meanwhile prominent conservative legal commentator, national security law expert and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has published an excellent overview of the charges in the National Review.
asserted
McCarthy → publish → Review
McCarthy is far to my right, and far more sympathetic to the War on Drugs (I myself believe it should be abolished).
asserted
it → believe → Drugs
Thus, it's notable that he and I agree that Hegseth should be convicted for his role in the drug boat strikes, which McCarthy characterizes as "indefensible":
asserted
McCarthy → agree → which
I do not believe there is any viable justification for the extrajudicial killings by military force of operators of suspected drug boats.
asserted
I → believe → boats
Our law addresses it through trial and imprisonment, not the use of military force….
asserted
law → address → force
The administration has not proved that the boats were ferrying narcotics, much less that the drugs were headed to the United States.
asserted
drugs → prove → States
The president's designation of Venezuelan criminal gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, besides being legally dubious (drug dealing is not "terrorist activity" as defined in federal law), does not authorize the use of force (it instead makes material support to the organization a crime and helps the government cut off funding sources).
asserted
government → define → sources
While the unauthorized killings in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have not drawn the level of public ire that the Iran war has, they are indefensible, and Hegseth has been their loudest, crudest champion.
asserted
Hegseth → draw → that
As noted in my earlier post, this view is similar to that of John Yoo, well-known former Bush Administration official and leading conservative advocate of sweeping executive power over national security and foreign affairs.
asserted
view → note → security
McCarthy also argues Hegseth should be convicted on at least one other charge:
asserted
Hegseth → argue → charge
Similarly, I do not believe there is any defending Hegseth on the charge that he has abused command authority and violated constitutional separation-of-powers principles in trying to discipline and censure Senator Kelly, a retired Navy captain (who remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
asserted
who → believe → Justice
Hegseth's actions, undoubtedly endorsed by the president, constituted unlawful command influence.
asserted
actions → endorse → influence
More importantly, they abused executive power in an effort to muffle congressional criticism.
asserted
they → abuse → criticism
The haughty Hegseth was playing a dangerous game here; if it has now come back to bite him, he has himself to blame.
asserted
he → play → himself
But I agree with McCarthy here.
asserted
I → agree → McCarthy
McCarthy also appears to recognize that the Iran War is illegal, but suggests that Hegseth does not deserve impeachment on this score, because he was just obeying Trump's orders and implementing his policy.
uncertain
he → appear → policy
He also notes (correctly) that previous presidents have gotten away with similar initiations of war without congressional authorization.
asserted
presidents → note → authorization
I disagree for reasons summarized in my previous post:
asserted
I → disagree → post
The former was following the latter's illegal orders (though he likely also helped influence Trump to give those orders in the first place).
asserted
he → follow → place
But sanctioning officials for obeying illegal orders is still important.
asserted
sanctioning → sanction → orders
I would add that Hegseth wasn't just some low-level flunky merely obeying orders.
asserted
Hegseth → add → orders
He has had a major influence on policy, and was one of the key architects of both the Iran War and the boat strikes.
asserted
He → have → War
He bears far greater responsibility than, e.g., servicemembers at the bottom of the chain of command.
asserted
He → bear → command
As also noted in my earlier post, it is indeed true that previous presidents, such as Barack Obama, have gotten away with starting illegal wars.
asserted
presidents → note → wars
Obama deserved to be impeached, as well.
asserted
Obama → deserve → ?
But that makes it all the more imperative to start enforcing this part of the Constitution more effectively.
asserted
it → make → Constitution
Moreover, the Iran War is much larger and has had far worse effects than any other illegal war of the last several decades.
asserted
War → have → decades
I will not say much about McCarthy's analysis of the other charges, except briefly on that focused on the removal of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
asserted
I → say → Maduro
McCarthy laments that Trump left the brutal socialist regime in power (minus Maduro), but suggests that the intervention might have been legally justified by the precedent of the 1989 US military action that removed and captured Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega.
uncertain
that → lament → Noriega
I differ for reasons I outlined here:
asserted
I → differ → reasons
Defenders of the legality of Trump's actions cite the 1989 invasion of Panama, which was undertaken in large part for the purpose of apprehending Panamian dictator Manuel Noriega; like Maduro, Noriega was charged with smuggling illegal drugs into the US.
asserted
Noriega → cite → US
But the 1989 Panama precedent does not actually justify Trump's actions.
asserted
precedent → justify → actions
On December 15, 1989 (five days before the US invasion), Noriega foolishly announced that Panama and the US were in a "state of war," thereby creating conflict between the two countries that did not exist in the Venezuela case.
asserted
that → announce → case
In addition, Panamanian forces had killed or wounded two US military personnel in the Panama Canal area, and detained other American citizens.
asserted
forces → kill → citizens
Unlike Noriega in 1989, the Venezuelan regime did not declare war on the US or otherwise initiate a military conflict.
asserted
regime → declare → conflict
Thus, congressional authorization is needed to make any US military intervention constitutional.
asserted
intervention → need → ?
That said, I think the Maduro intervention charge is much weaker than the Iran War and boat strike charges.
asserted
charge → say → War
…and 3 more, not listed.
The Aporia
