Let's talk about Hegseth, excuses, and the excused....
episodeTranscript
jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcriptTranscript
Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.
What is the episode’s opening premise about Hegseth, excuses, and the excused?
Well, howdy there internet people it spell again. So today we're going to talk about Hegseth Excuses and the Excused. So We got a question that I think might shed some light on how things work as far as unlawful orders, and why it's so important for presidents and higher ranking people to avoid tough guy let God sort them out rhetoric. But first, let's address the fog of war idea coming from Heg. The claim is now that they didn't know about those still on the boat at the time of the additional strike. If that's true and they really didn't know, the records will show it. I'm not holding my breath for that to be the case, though.
How does the host explain the “fog of war” concept and its relevance to the incident?
Beyond that, the idea of fog of war dates back to Klauswitz and relates to the idea of a lack of situational awareness due to a dynamic situation and the threats posed. That seems incredibly unlikely to come into play here. And honestly, the more they try to spin the events, the worse it gets. Saying you didn't have good situational awareness during a highly controversial and legally debated operation isn't good. On to the question Quote I've seen a few people say that the guy who actually fired and blew the boat up might end up being cleared. And then in the comments you said he might be insulated.
Why might the individual who fired the weapon be held ultimately responsible?
Make that make sense for me. Shouldn't he have ultimate responsibility? You would think, right, said It would make sense that the ultimate responsibility rests there and But go back to the video on unlawful orders. I'll put it down below. Orders are assumed to be lawful unless they are patently or manifestly unlawful. The person who actually fired is probably of a much, much lower rank than everybody else we've heard about.
What legal principle governs whether military orders are considered lawful or unlawful?
Let's just hypothetically say this moves to some kind of proceedings. That person's attorney just needs to show they were aware of the public comments of the commander in chief and the sec deaf. Which were wildly inappropriate. And then show the order came from an admiral. It's unlikely a military court is going to expect a subordinate to turn to an admiral or even a captain and say no. If they were aware of Trump saying stuff like the We're going to kill them. You know.
How does the discussion shift to the responsibility of higher‑ranking officers in the chain of command?
They're going to be like dead. They would assume the order to be lawful, but The person who fired could reasonably assume that maybe the admiral might have information that isn't being shared with them. especially when that admiral was a Devgrew officer for fifteen years. When you think of the super secret seals doing black bag stuff that never gets talked about. You're thinking of Devgrew, even if you've never heard the term. Back in that first video, which was in context of troops deploying in the US, I think I used the example of it being unlikely that Corporal Smith tells his company commander no when he's ordered to pull everybody off a bus and search them.
What does the host say about Navy culture and the notion that targeting shipwreck survivors is manifestly unlawful?
And that later the company commander would get in trouble. This is the same thing, just starting at much higher ranks. Now, I've heard from a few Navy guys that are saying that hitting survivors of a shipwreck is something widely known in the Navy to be manifestly unlawful. I can't speak to that. I wasn't in the Navy. But if that's the case, that changes things a little bit. But everything I just said would probably be viewed as a mitigating factor for the subordinate. The responsibility would lie higher. Knowing maybe half the battle, but the other half is violence, and In this context, the people doing the violence were counting on their leadership to know better. Anyway. It's just a thought y'all have a good day.
No segments match your search.
Select any passage to copy it with its citation or turn it into a shareable card.
Chapters
6 chapters
1
What is the episode’s opening premise about Hegseth, excuses, and the excused?
0:01–0:50
2
How does the host explain the “fog of war” concept and its relevance to the incident?
0:50–1:40
3
Why might the individual who fired the weapon be held ultimately responsible?
1:40–2:13
4
What legal principle governs whether military orders are considered lawful or unlawful?
2:13–2:50
5
How does the discussion shift to the responsibility of higher‑ranking officers in the chain of command?
2:50–3:41
6
What does the host say about Navy culture and the notion that targeting shipwreck survivors is manifestly unlawful?
3:41–4:37
Speakers
1 identifiedMore from Belle of the Ranch
Let's talk about Trump vs Smokey Bear....
Let's talk about Trump blocking the strait after failing to get a peace deal....
Let's talk about Trump’s record low consumer sentiment....
Let's talk about Trump, Iran, tolls in the strait of Hormuz, and what it all means....
Let's talk about Trump, Madman theory, and the search for reason....
Let's talk about more bad news for Trump’s midterms....