Liberal Forum

MR-7 » 24 Nov 2025, 5:20 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 5:20 pm

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

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

• Violation of International Law: Critics argue the actions may violate international law and U.S. laws against murder and assassination because drug cartels do not fit the traditional definition of non-state armed groups. International law permits force in self-defense against an imminent armed attack, a rationale experts say falls short in these cases.
• Civilian Targeting: Under international law, even criminal suspects are considered civilians and cannot be deliberately targeted with lethal force unless they pose an imminent threat. Experts suggest the administration has not provided evidence of such immediate threats, and historical precedent for maritime drug interdiction has focused on non-lethal seizure and arrest.
•  

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

24 Nov 2025, 5:07 pm

He served in the Salvation Army

And your BFDNB wife serviced the Salvation Army. Good times. No, BIGLY times.
 

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 ****.

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

There has been no evidence that the boats and their occupants were planning armed attacks against the United States justifying the use of military force in self-defense,” he said. “The Trump Administration has claimed that the United States is in an ‘armed conflict’ with unspecified drug trafficking groups but the drug traffickers’ actions to traffic drugs do not fit the accepted international definition of an armed conflict.

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.

Let's CALL **** on your **** POST!!

WAR is about killing people. More of them than ours. PERIOD!!

And when THREATS from another nation on THIS COUNTRY HAPPEN, people have to follow MILITARY ORDERS to eliminate the threat. PERIOD!!

That's what a MILITARY IS FOR, **** MORON!!

Stop. You are looking even MORE STUPID as time goes on.

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.

Nope...and not one of those idiots in the video even know of one...
 
Also, their feefees need not apply as there's a military code regarding orders and chain of command...
 

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.

Agreed as these idiots who made the video should have checked their feefees in at the door as congress does not get to decide what is legal or illegal in the military...as you for sure know, they got their own system to keep themselves in check...
 

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.

no one seems to be able to pull one out of their ***...
 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:34 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.

And they won't be...but it will be in a military tribunal...not some **** librul judge's court...
 

jerrab » 24 Nov 2025, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 4:40 pm

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

Who did?
 

Beekeeper » 24 Nov 2025, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 5:56 pm

Let's CALL **** on your **** POST!!

WAR is about killing people. More of them than ours. PERIOD!!

And when THREATS from another nation on THIS COUNTRY HAPPEN, people have to follow MILITARY ORDERS to eliminate the threat. PERIOD!!

That's what a MILITARY IS FOR, **** MORON!!

Stop. You are looking even MORE STUPID as time goes on.

asshole--------

There has been no evidence that the boats and their occupants were planning armed attacks against the United States justifying the use of military force in self-defense,” he said. “The Trump Administration has claimed that the United States is in an ‘armed conflict’ with unspecified drug trafficking groups but the drug traffickers’ actions to traffic drugs do not fit the accepted international definition of an armed conflict.

Beekeeper » 24 Nov 2025, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 5:56 pm

Let's CALL **** on your **** POST!!

WAR is about killing people. More of them than ours. PERIOD!!

And when THREATS from another nation on THIS COUNTRY HAPPEN, people have to follow MILITARY ORDERS to eliminate the threat. PERIOD!!

That's what a MILITARY IS FOR, **** MORON!!

Stop. You are looking even MORE STUPID as time goes on.

total asshole

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

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

ROG62 » 24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm

And they won't be...but it will be in a military tribunal...not some **** librul judge's court...

yep------------------

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.

ROG62 » 24 Nov 2025, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 6:04 pm

Agreed as these idiots who made the video should have checked their feefees in at the door as congress does not get to decide what is legal or illegal in the military...as you for sure know, they got their own system to keep themselves in check...

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

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.

ROG62 » 24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm

And they won't be...but it will be in a military tribunal...not some **** librul judge's court...

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

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, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 5:14 pm

When will you show us the unlawful order TRUMP gave?

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

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, 4:01 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 ****.

there will be too much fun watching hegswicth explain that telling soldiers to not obey an ILLEGAL order is treason

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.

You're a **** embarrassment to whatever branch you served.

ROG62 » 24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm

And they won't be...but it will be in a military tribunal...not some **** librul judge's court...

...not some **** librul judge's court...

:rofl:  

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 ****.

from YOUR link

---------------------------------------
President Donald Trump last week accused Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers of seditious behavior for urging U.S. troops to refuse any illegal orders. Trump, in a social media post, said the crime was "punishable by DEATH!"
 

ROG62 » 24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2025, 6:07 pm

Who did?

from 7 is my iq's link
--------------------------
President Donald Trump last week accused Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers of seditious behavior for urging U.S. troops to refuse any illegal orders. Trump, in a social media post, said the crime was "punishable by DEATH!"