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.

You're proving yourself to be a "DCUM dipshit" -

The illegality of Trump's orders and intended orders keeps getting shown over and over again.

Case in point:

Frankly it's good that we had people like Esper, and military leaders like Milley, Maddox, Kelly, McMaster, Votel, McRaven, Chiarelli, Allen, McChrystal and others to keep him from having the military do illegal shit. There's probably a lot more that we DON'T know than what we do know. And, it's not the "deep state" when it's people trying to keep the government from doing illegal shit. They are on the RIGHT side.

Anonymous wrote:What would MAGA's response be if the video had said something along the lines of "No matter what your CO says, an order to shoot the President is unlawful and must not be obeyed" instead of the more generic "Don't commit a crime"?

It’s irrelevant what they think. These are folks that are ok with pedophilia, corruption, cruelty, and incompetence.

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.

You need some thing new vs Liz Warren. That is the best you have? Trump was actively running a pedo and blackmail operations. This thread is about following illegal orders like blowing up civilians fishing boats or killing the families of people accused of being dealing drugs. Next up killing the drug addicts and their families in the US. Nothing illegal about that according to you.

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?

So two points. First the chain of command has to be will to prosecute. If the president and his appointees say no prosecution of war criminals or illegal orders it will not happen. Second republicans want no ROE. So Mei Lai would be commonplace and not illegal. Under Trump and the Republicans Mei Lai would be celebrated and William L. Calley Jr would have been promoted to LT Col.

US troops will behave similarly to the Japanese did in Manila and Nanjing. Wait till you see what happens in Venezuela with current leadership.

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.

Just because you say so, Karoline, doesn't make it true.

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)

We are not idiots. You can't just invent something, tell a blatant lie, and then claim murder is legal. We went through this W, remember.

How do we know they are lying? Because their lips are moving. Why would we EVER trust anything the Trump administration says?!

What would MAGA's response be if the video had said something along the lines of "No matter what your CO says, an order to shoot the President is unlawful and must not be obeyed" instead of the more generic "Don't commit a crime"?

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.

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.

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.

So do you think their pointing this out deserves an investigation?

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.

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.

Not even remotely. Read UCMJ Article 92. It states unambiguosly that it is a soldier's duty to refuse unlawful orders and this has been the case for 70 years. America soundly rejected the Nazi defense of "I was only following orders" at Nuremberg and ever since.

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*

Prove it.

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?

Weren't those accidental due to bad intel, or at least situations where there were known terrorists that were using civilians as shields? I don't think those are great situations, but I don't know of any situation where the Obama administration just pointed to a bunch of civilians and said "bomb them."

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)