So have all military orders been lawful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people in the military are aware that not all orders are lawful. This is yet another phony issue (like white supremacists in the military) that the Democrats pretend to be rushing to solve.

The Republicans are clearly feeling quite threatened by something that's supposedly a non-issue.

Probably because the Democrats are asserting checks and balances and are getting in the way of their authoritarian fever dreams. Otherwise, if Trump did everything lawfully, it would be a non-issue. They call it "sedition" or "undermining" the President but that would only work if someone else were giving orders to the military to countermand Trump's orders - and that's not happening.

But let's look at facts - based on history, Trump CAN NOT be trusted to not issue unlawful orders.

Trump already has the worst record of any President in US history where it comes to unlawful behavior. Most criminal convictions, he's lost the most lawsuits and other legal actions against him, had the most impeachments, had the most executive orders overturned or vacated and so on. And it's not just about politics and unhinged screeching liberals making shit up, he's had a huge number of legal issues and problems long before entering politics. That's just a fact, well documented.

Anyone laboring under some delusion that Trump has done no wrong and would never do anything illegal and that this is all just entirely "made up by the lunatic transgendered pink haired commie deep state" or whatever else is completely out of touch with reality and needs their head checked.

[Anonymous]

The only thing this really shows is what a bunch of ninnies MAGA is . . .

[Anonymous]

And DEMS!

Stop teaching MAGA new multi-syllabic words. Words like "sedition". They try to use them in a sentence and ALWAYS get them wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama drone bombing of innocents, was that legal?

Look if you’re so concerned pressure your rep to repeal patriot act.

I have serious issues with Obama's use of drones. But any legal and collateral damage ethical questions in Obama's case pale in comparison to the constant disregard for the law during this administration.

He JDAMed a 14 year old American boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama drone bombing of innocents, was that legal?

Look if you’re so concerned pressure your rep to repeal patriot act.

I have serious issues with Obama's use of drones. But any legal and collateral damage ethical questions in Obama's case pale in comparison to the constant disregard for the law during this administration.

He JDAMed a 14 year old American boy.

First, wasn't a JDAM, it was a drone firing a hellfire missile. Second, they didn't target the kid, they didn't even know the kid was there. The target was senior Al-Qaeda figures gathered deep inside a tribal area in Shabwah governorate in southern Yemen, which at the time was under AQAP control. The targets included Ibrahim al-Banna who was a high-ranking AQAP figure and Al Qaeda's senior media figure for Egypt, but he managed to survive and escape the attack. The attack was successful in eliminating 5 other AQAP terrorists but for some reason al-Awlaki's son was also there and was killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama drone bombing of innocents, was that legal?

Look if you’re so concerned pressure your rep to repeal patriot act.

I have serious issues with Obama's use of drones. But any legal and collateral damage ethical questions in Obama's case pale in comparison to the constant disregard for the law during this administration.

He JDAMed a 14 year old American boy.

First, wasn't a JDAM, it was a drone firing a hellfire missile. Second, they didn't target the kid, they didn't even know the kid was there. The target was senior Al-Qaeda figures gathered deep inside a tribal area in Shabwah governorate in southern Yemen, which at the time was under AQAP control. The targets included Ibrahim al-Banna who was a high-ranking AQAP figure and Al Qaeda's senior media figure for Egypt, but he managed to survive and escape the attack. The attack was successful in eliminating 5 other AQAP terrorists but for some reason al-Awlaki's son was also there and was killed.

So Trump’s ordering the US military to kill civilians who are no threat to the US is the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama drone bombing of innocents, was that legal?

Look if you’re so concerned pressure your rep to repeal patriot act.

I have serious issues with Obama's use of drones. But any legal and collateral damage ethical questions in Obama's case pale in comparison to the constant disregard for the law during this administration.

He JDAMed a 14 year old American boy.

First, wasn't a JDAM, it was a drone firing a hellfire missile. Second, they didn't target the kid, they didn't even know the kid was there. The target was senior Al-Qaeda figures gathered deep inside a tribal area in Shabwah governorate in southern Yemen, which at the time was under AQAP control. The targets included Ibrahim al-Banna who was a high-ranking AQAP figure and Al Qaeda's senior media figure for Egypt, but he managed to survive and escape the attack. The attack was successful in eliminating 5 other AQAP terrorists but for some reason al-Awlaki's son was also there and was killed.

So Trump’s ordering the US military to kill civilians who are no threat to the US is the same?

Obviously and absolutely not. The person trying to claim Obama specifically or knowingly ordered the Awlaki teenager to be droned in Yemen is unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The orders to sink civilian boats is certainly not lawful. That is why there were high level resignations over them.

Narco terrorist boats*

*fishermen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The orders to sink civilian boats is certainly not lawful. That is why there were high level resignations over them.

Narco terrorist boats*

What the f is a narco terrorist? It has no legal definition. It is just a made up term.

Let’s say the fishing boats were transporting drugs(this is a huge leap). The US military can not target and killing civilians who pose no threat to the US when we are at war. It is a war crime. We are not at war. This makes it murder.

There is no debating this. Blowing up the fishing boats was an illegal order. Everyone in the COC is liable and there is no statute of limitations on murder.

[Anonymous]

Fishing boats with four high horsepower engines. Ayup, I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do republicans believe that the orders in Mei Lai were legal? That the orders from
Hitler to mass murder Jews legal? Was blindingly following Pol Pot the right thing to do?

Is the legal defense “I was following orders” hold up in court for military personnel?

How does your conscience hold up when you slaughter innocent children and women because your commander and chief said so?

DP

It depends.

In vietnam, some of the NVA combatants were women and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama drone bombing of innocents, was that legal?

Look if you’re so concerned pressure your rep to repeal patriot act.

They were in fact probably legal.
They screwed up but it wasn't illegal.

Deliberately targeting those boats might have been legal for the first 60 days or so but the patriot act does not cover those attacks and are probably illegal after 60 days.
But trump is immune from criminal prosecution for illegal acts so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The orders to sink civilian boats is certainly not lawful. That is why there were high level resignations over them.

Narco terrorist boats*

Lmao.

We are all laughing at you.

They were intentionally being funny you dimwit.

We are all rolling our eyes at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people in the military are aware that not all orders are lawful. This is yet another phony issue (like white supremacists in the military) that the Democrats pretend to be rushing to solve.

Do they? Some of them like General Flynn clearly have a murky, faulty understanding of what is legal or not, and what is right or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama drone bombing of innocents, was that legal?

Look if you’re so concerned pressure your rep to repeal patriot act.

I have serious issues with Obama's use of drones. But any legal and collateral damage ethical questions in Obama's case pale in comparison to the constant disregard for the law during this administration.

No actually, they don't.

The president is acting lawfully. Don't like it, too bad.

No, this president is ignoring federal laws like the anti-impoundment act, the administrative procedures act and the war powers act. He is doing it all under the guise of emergency powers in the absence of an emergency. An emergency is when the legislature does not have the time to react, not when they do not have the desire to react. This is a matter of a lack of political will not a lack of time.

He is also violating due process