Liberal Forum

Calling for mutiny or coup based upon political ideological differences alone should be prosecuted, especially when leadership being the source.

He clearly broke the law and should have known better. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting Armed Forces General: (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Pentagon threatens to prosecute Senator Mark Kelly by recalling him to Navy service

**** kelly. He is a treasonous piece of ****.

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm

Calling for mutiny or coup based upon political ideological differences alone should be prosecuted, especially when leadership being the source.

He clearly broke the law and should have known better. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting Armed Forces General: (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Pentagon threatens to prosecute Senator Mark Kelly by recalling him to Navy service

**** kelly. He is a treasonous piece of ****.

so you admit trump gave illegal orders.

-----------------------------------------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon announced Monday it is investigating Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over possible breaches of military law after the former Navy pilot joined a handful of other lawmakers in a video that called for troops to defy “illegal orders.”The Pentagon’s statement, posted on social media, cited a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court martial or other measures.

 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm

Calling for mutiny or coup based upon political ideological differences alone should be prosecuted, especially when leadership being the source.

He clearly broke the law and should have known better. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting Armed Forces General: (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Pentagon threatens to prosecute Senator Mark Kelly by recalling him to Navy service

**** kelly. He is a treasonous piece of ****.

-----------------------------

A military superior giving an illegal order to kill is a serious matter where the service member has a legal and moral obligation to refuse it, and a superior could be held responsible for the illegal order. Refusing a manifestly illegal order, such as one to commit a crime or a war crime, is not grounds for punishment and can be used as a defense in court. International law and the rules of armed conflict make it clear that a service member cannot be excused from criminal responsibility for following such an order. 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:06 pm

so you admit trump gave illegal orders.

-----------------------------------------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon announced Monday it is investigating Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over possible breaches of military law after the former Navy pilot joined a handful of other lawmakers in a video that called for troops to defy “illegal orders.”The Pentagon’s statement, posted on social media, cited a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court martial or other measures.

What the hell are you babbling about. I admit that kelly is a piece of ****.

He clearly broke the law and should have known better. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting Armed Forces General: (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

I served 26 years. kelly is a traitor.
 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:10 pm

-----------------------------

A military superior giving an illegal order to kill is a serious matter where the service member has a legal and moral obligation to refuse it, and a superior could be held responsible for the illegal order. Refusing a manifestly illegal order, such as one to commit a crime or a war crime, is not grounds for punishment and can be used as a defense in court. International law and the rules of armed conflict make it clear that a service member cannot be excused from criminal responsibility for following such an order.

why don't you tell any of us what the ILLEGAL order was or is....don't want your opinion. 
 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:12 pm

why don't you tell any of us what the ILLEGAL order was or is....don't want your opinion.

----------------------------------
A military superior giving an illegal order to kill is a serious matter where the service member has a legal and moral obligation to refuse it, and a superior could be held responsible for the illegal order. Refusing a manifestly illegal order, such as one to commit a crime or a war crime, is not grounds for punishment and can be used as a defense in court. International law and the rules of armed conflict make it clear that a service member cannot be excused from criminal responsibility for following such an order. 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:10 pm

What the hell are you babbling about. I admit that kelly is a piece of ****.

He clearly broke the law and should have known better. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting Armed Forces General: (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

I served 26 years. kelly is a traitor.

where did you serve? not in america.

-------------------------------------------------
A military superior giving an illegal order to kill is a serious matter where the service member has a legal and moral obligation to refuse it, and a superior could be held responsible for the illegal order. Refusing a manifestly illegal order, such as one to commit a crime or a war crime, is not grounds for punishment and can be used as a defense in court. International law and the rules of armed conflict make it clear that a service member cannot be excused from criminal responsibility for following such an order. 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:12 pm

why don't you tell any of us what the ILLEGAL order was or is....don't want your opinion.

he said illegal thereforth any objection proves the orders were illegal.

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm

Calling for mutiny or coup based upon political ideological differences alone should be prosecuted, especially when leadership being the source.

He clearly broke the law and should have known better. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 — Activities Affecting Armed Forces General: (a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—

Pentagon threatens to prosecute Senator Mark Kelly by recalling him to Navy service

**** kelly. He is a treasonous piece of ****.

 The announcement comes days after President Donald Trump accused Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers of "seditious behavior" for a video in which they said that U.S. service members could refuse illegal orders.In a statement posted to X, the Department of Defense said it "received serious allegations of misconduct" against Kelly, who is a retired U.S. Navy captain."In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings," the statement read."The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels," the Pentagon said. 
 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:42 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:42 pm

 The announcement comes days after President Donald Trump accused Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers of "seditious behavior" for a video in which they said that U.S. service members could refuse illegal orders.In a statement posted to X, the Department of Defense said it "received serious allegations of misconduct" against Kelly, who is a retired U.S. Navy captain."In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings," the statement read."The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels," the Pentagon said.

A military superior giving an illegal order to kill is a serious matter where the service member has a legal and moral obligation to refuse it, and a superior could be held responsible for the illegal order. Refusing a manifestly illegal order, such as one to commit a crime or a war crime, is not grounds for punishment and can be used as a defense in court. International law and the rules of armed conflict make it clear that a service member cannot be excused from criminal responsibility for following such an order. 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:37 pm

where did you serve? not in america.

-------------------------------------------------
A military superior giving an illegal order to kill is a serious matter where the service member has a legal and moral obligation to refuse it, and a superior could be held responsible for the illegal order. Refusing a manifestly illegal order, such as one to commit a crime or a war crime, is not grounds for punishment and can be used as a defense in court. International law and the rules of armed conflict make it clear that a service member cannot be excused from criminal responsibility for following such an order.

What a dumb mother **** you are. 
 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:01 pm

**** kelly. He is a treasonous piece of ****.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... rders.html      As you mentioned, I and a lot of other folks have written about the growing roster of boat strikes and fatalities. Maybe you’ve read some of this work on Just Security, Lawfare, Lawfire, and elsewhere. If those publications aren’t on your reading list, what I suspect did grab your attention was the recent Washington Post report about a classified Office of Legal Counsel memo that concluded: “The strikes were ordered consistent with the laws of armed conflict, 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.”While the second sentence of this quote is generally true, the first sentence is a non sequitur. The laws of armed conflict (LOAC) have nothing to do with deciding whether the strikes are lawful.

First, the U.S. is not in an armed conflict; as many commentators have observed, no country or organized group has attacked or used armed force against us. Nor can a plausible claim be made that such an armed attack is imminent. Consequently, most legal experts have concluded that the United States is NOT engaged in an armed conflict and that the strikes are NOT lawful. Once an armed conflict has been deemed lawful, LOAC applies to regulate the conduct and application of our armed forces. All of this is to say that the DOJ spokesman’s suggestion that LOAC is applicable here is wrong. So is his second point suggesting that orders issued consistent with LOAC are legal. It incorrectly presumes that any order given in the LOAC context is per se lawful and hence must be followed, “no ifs, ands, or buts.”Of course, lawful orders must be followed, but simply stenciling “LOAC” on an order does not make it lawful, even if the label had been correct (which this one isn’t). A LOAC-related order may be unlawful, as can an order that arises in the law-enforcement context, which I think is what you are currently actually dealing with.
 
 
 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:44 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:44 pm

What a dumb mother **** you are.

Ditto. 

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 4:44 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:44 pm

What a dumb mother **** you are.

read this mother **** get yourself educated//////////////////


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... rders.html

RebelGator » 24 Nov 2025, 4:56 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:56 pm

Ditto.

------------------

First, the U.S. is not in an armed conflict; as many commentators have observed, no country or organized group has attacked or used armed force against us. Nor can a plausible claim be made that such an armed attack is imminent. Consequently, most legal experts have concluded that the United States is NOT engaged in an armed conflict and that the strikes are NOT lawful. Once an armed conflict has been deemed lawful, LOAC applies to regulate the conduct and application of our armed forces. All of this is to say that the DOJ spokesman’s suggestion that LOAC is applicable here is wrong. So is his second point suggesting that orders issued consistent with LOAC are legal. It incorrectly presumes that any order given in the LOAC context is per se lawful and hence must be followed, “no ifs, ands, or buts.”Of course, lawful orders must be followed, but simply stenciling “LOAC” on an order does not make it lawful, even if the label had been correct (which this one isn’t). A LOAC-related order may be unlawful, as can an order that arises in the law-enforcement context, which I think is what you are currently actually dealing with.

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:58 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:58 pm

------------------

First, the U.S. is not in an armed conflict; as many commentators have observed, no country or organized group has attacked or used armed force against us. Nor can a plausible claim be made that such an armed attack is imminent. Consequently, most legal experts have concluded that the United States is NOT engaged in an armed conflict and that the strikes are NOT lawful. Once an armed conflict has been deemed lawful, LOAC applies to regulate the conduct and application of our armed forces. All of this is to say that the DOJ spokesman’s suggestion that LOAC is applicable here is wrong. So is his second point suggesting that orders issued consistent with LOAC are legal. It incorrectly presumes that any order given in the LOAC context is per se lawful and hence must be followed, “no ifs, ands, or buts.”Of course, lawful orders must be followed, but simply stenciling “LOAC” on an order does not make it lawful, even if the label had been correct (which this one isn’t). A LOAC-related order may be unlawful, as can an order that arises in the law-enforcement context, which I think is what you are currently actually dealing with.

Tell us how Obongo did it...you didn't give a **** then, what happened?

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:37 pm

where did you serve? not in america.

-------------------------------------------------
A military superior giving an illegal order to kill is a serious matter where the service member has a legal and moral obligation to refuse it, and a superior could be held responsible for the illegal order. Refusing a manifestly illegal order, such as one to commit a crime or a war crime, is not grounds for punishment and can be used as a defense in court. International law and the rules of armed conflict make it clear that a service member cannot be excused from criminal responsibility for following such an order.

He served in the Salvation Army
 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:57 pm

read this mother **** get yourself educated//////////////////

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... rders.html

When will you show us the unlawful order TRUMP gave?
 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:57 pm

read this mother **** get yourself educated//////////////////

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... rders.html

You make it sound like TRUMP needs "congressional approval" to strike the cartel....or, it's unlawful. 
 

*Roshambo » 24 Nov 2025, 5:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 5:07 pm

He served in the Salvation Army