AMNA NAWAZ: Military service personnel have been seeking outside legal advice about some of the missions the Trump administration has assigned them.

The U.S.

strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats and deployments to American cities have sparked a firestorm of debate over their legality, and some service members are turning to nonprofit organizations for help.

In grainy footage from above the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, 20 times since September, the Pentagon has shown the same thing, a flash of light and a boat allegedly carrying drugs into the United States incinerated by a U.S.

military strike, in all, dozens of people killed on board the vessels.

But that is the extent of what the Trump administration has disclosed publicly, no confirmation of any drugs on board or the identities of the people killed.

President Trump has justified the lethal strikes and the fog of war that's clouded them.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: They killed 300,000 people last year, drugs, these drugs coming in.

They killed 300,000 Americans last year.

And that gives you legal authority.

We know the boats.

We know everything else.

We're allowed to do it.

It's in international waters.

If we don't do it, we're going to lose hundreds of thousands of people.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, reports that the Trump administration is covering its legal bases.

According to The Washington Post, Justice Department lawyers this summer crafted a classified memo arguing that U.S.

troops involved in the boat strikes would not be in legal jeopardy.

On Capitol Hill, open questions, including from Republican members about the legality of those strikes.

REP.

MIKE ROGERS (R-MI): People were not happy with the level information that was provided and certainly the level of legal justification that was provided.

AMNA NAWAZ: Calls to organizations like The Orders Project, which provides free legal advice to military personnel, are on the rise from staff officers involved in planning the boat strikes, as are calls to a separate hot line from National Guard personnel concerned about domestic deployments to American cities, and even calls expressing concerns of complicity and a possible genocide in Gaza by virtue of U.S.

weapons sent to Israel, signaling heightened concern from within the U.S.

government that the U.S.

military is exposing those who serve to legal harm.

For perspective on all this, we turn to retired lieutenant colonel Frank Rosenblatt.

He was an Army lawyer and is now the president of the National Institute of Military Justice, which runs The Orders Project.

Colonel, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET)., Former U.S.

Army Lawyer: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, The Orders Project, for anyone unfamiliar, was started five years ago as a place military personnel can get legal advice that's independent from the Defense Department.

Tell me about the calls you have been receiving specific to those U.S.

military strikes on boats.

How many calls and what are people asking?

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET): Thanks.

The phone has been picking up a bit, our activity in the past three months.

And some of these have related to the new military activities in the Caribbean.

We are primarily getting calls, a lot of people who are tangentially involved.

They aren't the people who are actually on the operations or are approving them.

But many of these are -- they're performing some sort of role in between, a staff officer who's asked to apply their expertise.

And they have been reaching out to us when they have been concerned that the answer that they're giving is -- has been very disfavored.

And they're feeling pressure from their higher-ups to convert their answer into something that is a little -- to change a concur from -- a nonconcur to a concur.

AMNA NAWAZ: In other words, pressure to get on board with the decision to carry out the strikes.

Is that what you're saying?

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET): Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: And then related to the National Guard deployments, you told my colleague earlier you're also fielding calls related to that.

What are those questions?

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET): These are -- we're getting an appropriate level of curiosity, because anybody who's been following the courts, it's like watching a tennis match right now, back and forth every day between a district court enjoining the president's actions and a court of appeals lifting that, and the Supreme Court acting on their emergency docket.

So when people are being told or to anticipate a deployment to an American city, they do have some questions about this.

And we just try to help them figure out what's right for them, to help them feel better about what they're doing or where they need to raise questions, to ask the right questions of their leaders to make sure that they are remaining compliant with their -- not only their legal obligations, but so that there's no moral injury later on that they don't do something that they knew was wrong at the time.

As for The Orders Project, we have tended to receive most of our calls from military officers, rather than lower-ranking enlisted members.

AMNA NAWAZ: And tell me about that.

Why -- that sounds like it surprises you.

Does it?

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET): Yes, and I don't think that's because there's any sort of difference in the seriousness which all military members take their jobs.

I do think, though, that lower enlisted members are -- if they are told to do something, then they are going to trust that the correct staff processes and command approvals have happened for that to go through.

And so they're not picking up the phones to call.

However, some of the military staff officers, on the other hand, they are actually involved in the implementation and planning of these missions.

And so, when they are, they are able to, I think, maybe get some insight into that sometimes there may be asked to do things that they don't think are correct or that are at least maybe boundary-pushing and are different than how they have done things in the past.

AMNA NAWAZ: So I should note, in response to a request from the "News Hour," the Department of Justice spokesperson sent us this statement, saying -- quote -- "The strikes were ordered consistent with the laws of armed conflict," referring to the boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific, "and, as such, are lawful orders.

Military personnel are legally obligated to follow lawful orders and as such are not subject to prosecution for following lawful orders."

I just want to get your response to that, Colonel, and also what that means for the kind of advice you're giving people who call you.

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET): The public is paying attention to these things, as are many members of the military.

There are lots of questions being asked, and not all of the answers have been forthcoming about, one, the factual basis for this and the legal basis for this.

I don't think that we can say that these are orders that are manifestly unlawful just based on what we can see right now.

But there are also many questions about the legal basis for this under both U.S.

law, U.S.

Constitution, constitutional law, as well as international law.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, Colonel, the reporting we mentioned earlier that says there's a DOJ memo that basically says soldiers would be immune from prosecution if involved in these boat strikes, how do you react to that?

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET): The conference of immunity does raise some important questions.

And my first reaction is, anybody who relies on that, the fact that DOJ has signed a memo saying there's blanket immunity, is making a mistake to fully rely upon this.

Now, it does mean something, but there are a number of questions.

One is, why is this being offered?

I mean, we don't normally immunize people.

And so the question is, what is it that you're asking me to do?

What sort of conduct will confer this immunity?

Second, who -- is the person who is giving this immunity, do they have the proper power to do so?

For example, if a service member relies on DOJ immunity, that doesn't mean that a state may not prosecute them for any crimes they commit, or if they travel to another country.

If there are allegations that they have committed atrocity crimes, then other countries are -- could invoke their own universal jurisdiction and put them before the national courts of another country.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, that is retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Rosenblatt joining us tonight.

Colonel, thank you for your time.

We appreciate it.

LT.

COL.

FRANK ROSENBLATT (RET): Thank you.