Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former military lawyer, said he hoped the boat strikes would serve as an example for future generations.*Roshambo » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ In late 2025, Senator Kelly (a retired Navy captain and former astronaut) and five other Democratic lawmakers published a video reminding military and intelligence personnel of their constitutional oath, stating they are obligated to refuse unlawful orders.
Well it looks like he was right. US boat strikes killed over 200 people. Service members have questions
The U.S. military has killed more than 200 people in strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific in the last nine months in what legal experts and former military lawyers broadly agree constitute illegal military orders that service members should refuse to follow.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/ ... 51006.html
"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former military lawyer, said he hoped the boat strikes would serve as an example for future generations.
"It's going to be a shameful episode in the history of American military operations, and I hope it becomes a case study in what not to do," he said.
forever associated with a rapist felon...
Slack Jaw, you’re confusing an investigative article with a legal ruling. Nothing in that report establishes an “illegal order,” and Kelly’s video wasn’t a prophecy...it was political messaging. You don’t get to declare military orders unlawful because Yahoo wrote a headline. Come back when you understand ROE, Title 10, and what actually qualifies as an unlawful order. U R so g'ddamn stupid.*Roshambo » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ In late 2025, Senator Kelly (a retired Navy captain and former astronaut) and five other Democratic lawmakers published a video reminding military and intelligence personnel of their constitutional oath, stating they are obligated to refuse unlawful orders.
Well it looks like he was right. US boat strikes killed over 200 people. Service members have questions
The U.S. military has killed more than 200 people in strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific in the last nine months in what legal experts and former military lawyers broadly agree constitute illegal military orders that service members should refuse to follow.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/ ... 51006.html

Slack Jaw...quoting one retired JAG giving an opinion doesn’t turn an investigative article into a legal ruling. Kelly wasn’t “proven right,” and nothing in that report establishes an unlawful order. You’re confusing criticism with law, and journalism with adjudication. Come back when you understand the difference.Blackvegetable » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former military lawyer, said he hoped the boat strikes would serve as an example for future generations.
"It's going to be a shameful episode in the history of American military operations, and I hope it becomes a case study in what not to do," he said.
forever associated with a rapist felon...
Great educational video reiterating the fact: U.S. soldier can—and is legally required to—refuse an order if it is unlawful.MR-7 » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Slack Jaw, you’re confusing an investigative article with a legal ruling. Nothing in that report establishes an “illegal order,” and Kelly’s video wasn’t a prophecy...it was political messaging. You don’t get to declare military orders unlawful because Yahoo wrote a headline. Come back when you understand ROE, Title 10, and what actually qualifies as an unlawful order. U R so g'ddamn stupid.
I understand that you were kept, safely, thousands of miles from any action but this is pretty cut & dried....MR-7 » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Slack Jaw, you’re confusing an investigative article with a legal ruling. Nothing in that report establishes an “illegal order,” and Kelly’s video wasn’t a prophecy...it was political messaging. You don’t get to declare military orders unlawful because Yahoo wrote a headline. Come back when you understand ROE, Title 10, and what actually qualifies as an unlawful order. U R so g'ddamn stupid.
If you stick a cucumba in @ROG62 's ear.. It breaks right on through to the other side.*Roshambo » 27 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".
I believe E. Jean Carroll
Rosh, quoting a journalist saying “experts broadly agree” doesn’t magically turn an investigative article into a legal ruling. Kelly’s video wasn’t a prediction, and nothing in that report establishes an unlawful order under U.S. military law. You’re confusing criticism with law....and journalism with adjudication. U R so g'ddamn stupid̶*̶R̶o̶s̶h̶a̶m̶b̶o̶
̶
̶G̶r̶e̶a̶t̶ ̶e̶d̶u̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶v̶i̶d̶e̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶i̶t̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶:̶ ̶U̶.̶S̶.̶ ̶s̶o̶l̶d̶i̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶—̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶l̶e̶g̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶q̶u̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶—̶r̶e̶f̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶l̶a̶w̶f̶u̶l̶.̶
̶
̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶.̶S̶.̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶i̶t̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶k̶i̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶2̶0̶0̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶b̶o̶a̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶C̶a̶r̶i̶b̶b̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶E̶a̶s̶t̶e̶r̶n̶ ̶P̶a̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶n̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶t̶h̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶g̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶t̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶i̶t̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶l̶a̶w̶y̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶b̶r̶o̶a̶d̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶i̶t̶u̶t̶e̶ ̶i̶l̶l̶e̶g̶a̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶i̶t̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶r̶v̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶f̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶f̶o̶l̶l̶o̶w̶.̶
Blackvegetable » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
You were in Food Service, right?
Escape to Trump Island..Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ And right on cue Run Off to Canada (ROTC) is mocking those who volunteered.
Mark Kelly is lucky he did not get courtmartialed.
This isn't a complicated moral OR legal question...MR-7 » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Rosh, quoting a journalist saying “experts broadly agree” doesn’t magically turn an investigative article into a legal ruling. Kelly’s video wasn’t a prediction, and nothing in that report establishes an unlawful order under U.S. military law. You’re confusing criticism with law....and journalism with adjudication. U R so g'ddamn stupid
The man ain't lyin'JohnnyYou » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ If you stick a cucumba in @ROG62 's ear.. It breaks right on through to the other side.
Another educational video...
https://youtu.be/0Xa7Dp3-eYA?si=KHn_RLu4JJfO9Enp
Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Blackvegetable » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
You were in Food Service, right?
And right on cue Run Off to Canada (ROTC) is mocking those who volunteered.
Mark Kelly is lucky he did not get courtmartialed.
Notice I addressed the topic. Also notice, I did not not edit any posts, Psycho Stalker.
Huey » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ And right on cue Run Off to Canada (ROTC) is mocking those who volunteered.
Mark Kelly is lucky he did not get courtmartialed.
Mark Kelly is lucky he did not get courtmartialed.
Post your opening remark.Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
Notice I addressed the topic. Also notice, I did not not edit any posts, Psycho Stalker.
I addressed the topic
Cucumber water - I have not had it in a long time.
Funny how Slack Jaw keeps acting like Kelly is some flawless oracle. Don’t worry...the universe has a way of handing out ‘Bolton‑style reality checks’ to people who posture a little too hard. Everybody gets their day eventually.Huey » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ And right on cue Run Off to Canada (ROTC) is mocking those who volunteered.
Mark Kelly is lucky he did not get courtmartialed.