So have all military orders been lawful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course not. And military orders should not be “presumed to be lawful “ — no matter what the so-called ‘Department of War” is now putting out there as a threat. There are reasons that officers swear different oaths from enlisted service members— responsibility and judgment.

That is treason. Right there.

You only think that because you don't know what treason is.

Google treason insurrection and sedition and tell me how this even falls into any of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I find it interesting you went so far back. Do Democrats think Obama drone bombings of innocents were legal?

When did Obama target innocents? When did he say "send drones to kill this innocent person" Or are you talking about when he gave lawful orders and innocent people happened to get killed

[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.

Obama killed an American citizen. Denied his due rights. No trial in absentia, the excuse was national security. It is the fact that the Obama admin did this, makes it easier for Trump admin to bomb boats. Trump did label drug cartels terrorists, and because of that the actions are protected by the patriot act.

(Which was almost unanimously renewed shortly after trumps first impeachment)

Presidents have different powers during times of war. Obama was a wartime president. Trump is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell that to all of the twitter dipshits claiming they served in the military and that Mark Kelly somehow committed treason by reiterating what the UCMJ says. They are essentially implying everything Trump orders is lawful and for anyone to question his orders is treason.

If you have to resort to “Twitter dipshits” to prove your point, you’ve lost. It’s like Slotkin saying the military needed to be told about illegal orders due to the movie “A Few Good Men.” You guys are relying on the most ridiculous evidence to try to prove your points. No wonder you believed Liz Warren when she claimed Native American ancestry based on a picture of a grandparent who had prominent cheekbones.

Donald J Trump the President of the United States of America is among those twitter dipshits saying that Mark Kelly is committing treason for which the penalty is death.

[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*

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.

Have you heard of the patriot act and how it classifies terrorists?

[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.

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...

But they're narco terrorists. Amirite?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This sounds pretty bad. What was the seal team commander doing? He surely knows better.

[Anonymous]

Thankfully, even though Trump will pardon Hegseth for this, US Presidential pardons have no impact on war crimes trials in The Hague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thankfully, even though Trump will pardon Hegseth for this, US Presidential pardons have no impact on war crimes trials in The Hague.

Hegseth is essentially admitting to war crimes and murder on Twitter/X. When will people learn that they don't need to put out everything over social media...

[Anonymous]

Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

Ooo, I see what you did there. Very clever.

So far, the review has not led to a recall, charges, or a court-martial. It is still just an administrative step that the Pentagon is allowed to take. Call it a temper tantrum if you like - but Secretary Hegseth has the authority. Sen. Kelly should have chosen his words more carefully, or better yet, declined to participate in the video because he's still subject to the UCMJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

Ooo, I see what you did there. Very clever.

So far, the review has not led to a recall, charges, or a court-martial. It is still just an administrative step that the Pentagon is allowed to take. Call it a temper tantrum if you like - but Secretary Hegseth has the authority. Sen. Kelly should have chosen his words more carefully, or better yet, declined to participate in the video because he's still subject to the UCMJ.

What about his words do you find illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go after Kelly, Slotkin and the other 4.

18 USC 1381
18 USC 2387

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of War Crimes could actually go after them? That temper tantrum’s kind of died out.

Ooo, I see what you did there. Very clever.

So far, the review has not led to a recall, charges, or a court-martial. It is still just an administrative step that the Pentagon is allowed to take. Call it a temper tantrum if you like - but Secretary Hegseth has the authority. Sen. Kelly should have chosen his words more carefully, or better yet, declined to participate in the video because he's still subject to the UCMJ.

What about his words do you find illegal?

What I think doesn't matter. It's up to the Department of War and the UCMJ. You questioned the legitimacy of the action to investigate Sen. Kelly. It's legitimate. He can have his day in court.