Liberal Forum

jerrab » 05 Jan 2026, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2026, 10:24 pm

neither did the inept soldiers apparently.

lol         

So... You are FOR them making the kill now?
You're armchair quarterbacking the operation as if to impart superior knowledge

btw
The first missile was a direct hit, remember? That WAS what you were bitching about...
You know: Why hit them AGAIN?  .  .  .  
​​​​​​​
Grasping at anything like a progressive.
Wait. Are you a progressive?

RebelGator » 05 Jan 2026, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2026, 3:31 pm

I think we should bomb the villages of the dead drug smugglers.....what do think of that, Granny?

Just go in and shoot up anything anti-american in the western hemisphere....claim it as our own.


no oil, no silver, no trade with countries that don't kiss the ring and bend the knee

They call us horrible so let's not disappoint them...after all they ALL stole from us for decades

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 7:25 am

So... You are FOR them making the kill now?
You're armchair quarterbacking the operation as if to impart superior knowledge

btw
The first missile was a direct hit, remember? That WAS what you were bitching about...
You know: Why hit them AGAIN?  .  .  .  

Grasping at anything like a progressive.
Wait. Are you a progressive?

the first shot was at a boat. the job was done, two people  clinging to a boat is not a vital target. what you want is kelly demoted for telling the truth and what you don't is the video that proves the second strike was illegal and you support trump and hegsmith in hiding the fact that hegsmith is a war criminal

jerrab » 06 Jan 2026, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 2:14 pm

the first shot was at a boat. the job was done, two people  clinging to a boat is not a vital target. what you want is kelly demoted for telling the truth and what you don't is the video that proves the second strike was illegal and you support trump and hegsmith in hiding the fact that hegsmith is a war criminal

What you want is the Trump administration at whatever the price.
Personally I see it as mere collateral damage to a larger solution.
They go to extensive means to evade. We go to extensive means to prevent.

You are a small thinker.
Go find an addict that used to have a family that could recognize him/her.
They're everywhere in America these days. Then thank the assholes running those boats.
It's obvious what your priorities are.

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm

What you want is the Trump administration at whatever the price.
Personally I see it as mere collateral damage to a larger solution.
They go to extensive means to evade. We go to extensive means to prevent.

You are a small thinker.
Go find an addict that used to have a family that could recognize him/her.
They're everywhere in America these days. Then thank the assholes running those boats.
It's obvious what your priorities are.

what you want is a president who can do what ever he wants including murder, war crimes and blocking free speech, kelly had every right to say that soldiers can refuse illegal orders because that is the law.

and all of a sudden you do not believe in personal responsibilty and it is drug runners who turn people into addidts.

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm

What you want is the Trump administration at whatever the price.
Personally I see it as mere collateral damage to a larger solution.
They go to extensive means to evade. We go to extensive means to prevent.

You are a small thinker.
Go find an addict that used to have a family that could recognize him/her.
They're everywhere in America these days. Then thank the assholes running those boats.
It's obvious what your priorities are.

https://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2025/f ... al-orders/

1. Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command.

1. Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any lawful general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means.  The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”  The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”  Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

 

1. What are some scenarios in which I might be given illegal orders?

 None of the scenarios below would necessarily involve illegal orders, but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal.In the U.S.:

• Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.)

• Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”)

 

jerrab » 06 Jan 2026, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:19 pm

https://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2025/f ... al-orders/

1. Yes! All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders. Your oath is to the Constitution (which incorporates international treaties ratified by the U.S. on human rights and the law of war), not to the Commander-In-Chief or to any other individual in the chain of command.

1. Under the UCMJ, a servicemember may be punished by court-martial for failure to obey any lawful general order or regulation. The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means.  The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”  The Rules go on to say that, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”  Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination normally can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

 

1. What are some scenarios in which I might be given illegal orders?

 None of the scenarios below would necessarily involve illegal orders, but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal.In the U.S.:

• Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.)

• Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”)

Thank you for the subject-to-interpretation stuff.

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm

What you want is the Trump administration at whatever the price.
Personally I see it as mere collateral damage to a larger solution.
They go to extensive means to evade. We go to extensive means to prevent.

You are a small thinker.
Go find an addict that used to have a family that could recognize him/her.
They're everywhere in America these days. Then thank the assholes running those boats.
It's obvious what your priorities are.

• small  thinkers are what you call those who call **** on lies
•  
• -------------------------------------------------------
•  
•  
• "Double-Tap" Strikes: In late 2025, Kelly raised concerns that the U.S. military may have committed war crimes by conducting secondary strikes on alleged drug boats to kill survivors of the initial attacks.
• The "Kill Everyone" Order: Reports from The Washington Post in November 2025 alleged that Pete Hegseth authorized strikes with orders to "kill everyone," including shipwrecked survivors, which would violate the Department of Defense Law of War Manual.

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:26 pm

Thank you for the subject-to-interpretation stuff.

nope-------------- no interpretation needed......it is in black and white.

• "Double-Tap" Strikes: In late 2025, Kelly raised concerns that the U.S. military may have committed war crimes by conducting secondary strikes on alleged drug boats to kill survivors of the initial attacks.
• The "Kill Everyone" Order: Reports from The Washington Post in November 2025 alleged that Pete Hegseth authorized strikes with orders to "kill everyone," including shipwrecked survivors, which would violate the Department of Defense Law of War Manual.

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:26 pm

Thank you for the subject-to-interpretation stuff.

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


The Department of Defense (DoD) Law of War Manual explicitly states that killing shipwrecked or otherwise incapacitated survivors who are "out of the fight" (hors de combat) is a war crime and strictly prohibited. Orders to do so are illegal and must be disobeyed by service members. 

jerrab » 06 Jan 2026, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:26 pm

• small  thinkers are what you call those who call **** on lies
•  
• -------------------------------------------------------
•  
•  
• "Double-Tap" Strikes: In late 2025, Kelly raised concerns that the U.S. military may have committed war crimes by conducting secondary strikes on alleged drug boats to kill survivors of the initial attacks.
• The "Kill Everyone" Order: Reports from The Washington Post in November 2025 alleged that Pete Hegseth authorized strikes with orders to "kill everyone," including shipwrecked survivors, which would violate the Department of Defense Law of War Manual.

I believe you are a partisan hack (like most of the MSM).
The double standard of what is allowable, legal, ethical, moral, etc changes with the party in power.
This is evident when you call out Trump but never blink when a Clinton bombs 5 separate nations or an Obama vaporizes a civilian.

Partisan hackery begets double standards. You do it without guilt.
Expect it in return without all the moralizing.

jerrab » 06 Jan 2026, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:30 pm

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

The Department of Defense (DoD) Law of War Manual explicitly states that killing shipwrecked or otherwise incapacitated survivors who are "out of the fight" (hors de combat) is a war crime and strictly prohibited. Orders to do so are illegal and must be disobeyed by service members.

Ok. Did that happen? IDK.
Combatants, criminals... no difference.

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 2:47 pm

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 2:19 pm

What you want is the Trump administration at whatever the price.
Personally I see it as mere collateral damage to a larger solution.
They go to extensive means to evade. We go to extensive means to prevent.

You are a small thinker.
Go find an addict that used to have a family that could recognize him/her.
They're everywhere in America these days. Then thank the assholes running those boats.
It's obvious what your priorities are.

• small  thinkers are what you call those who call **** on lies
•  
• -------------------------------------------------------
•  
•  
• "Double-Tap" Strikes: In late 2025, Kelly raised concerns that the U.S. military may have committed war crimes by conducting secondary strikes on alleged drug boats to kill survivors of the initial attacks.
• The "Kill Everyone" Order: Reports from The Washington Post in November 2025 alleged that Pete Hegseth authorized strikes with orders to "kill everyone," including shipwrecked survivors, which would violate the Department of Defense Law of War Manual.

Well, you are going to have to investigate and prosecute Obama and his military leadership if you are going agter double tap strikes:

Drones kill rescuers in 'double tap', say activists

• Published
  22 October 2013

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333


https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=flr

Double-Tap Warfare: Should President Obama Be Investigated for War Crimes? 

A “double-tap” drone strike involves bombing a target, waiting a period of five to twenty minutes, often during which first responders arrive, and then bombing the target a second or even third time. This Note argues that such attacks, by virtue of their indiscriminate nature, are likely serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which prohibits targeting civilians, the wounded, or those placed hors de combat. 

I don't believe there is statute of limitations on this. So, are you game to go after them as well?


 
 
 

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:34 pm

I believe you are a partisan hack (like most of the MSM).
The double standard of what is allowable, legal, ethical, moral, etc changes with the party in power.
This is evident when you call out Trump but never blink when a Clinton bombs 5 separate nations or an Obama vaporizes a civilian.

Partisan hackery begets double standards. You do it without guilt.
Expect it in return without all the moralizing.

loyalty to trump is all you are. trump could have stopped the war in ukraine months ago but he thought getting minerals and oil from ukraine was better and now russia will not  agree to anything trump says because trump took barges of oil that as heading to china, which acrually ww3 is possible thanks to trump. plus trump sends weapons to israel to bomb gaza and lets  israel starve people to death. you can point out what clinton and obama did but the difference I would never vote for them but you can't wait to vote for vance or better yet for trump because he might run again,

jerrab » 06 Jan 2026, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 4:00 pm

loyalty to trump is all you are. trump could have stopped the war in ukraine months ago but he thought getting minerals and oil from ukraine was better and now russia will not  agree to anything trump says because trump took barges of oil that as heading to china, which acrually ww3 is possible thanks to trump. plus trump sends weapons to israel to bomb gaza and lets  israel starve people to death. you can point out what clinton and obama did but the difference I would never vote for them but you can't wait to vote for vance or better yet for trump because he might run again,

**** Trump. If Biden had the spine and/or marbles and blew the **** out of them it would've garnered praise from many quarters. But PC was all that administration was about. Nothing practical.
See what I mean about partisan hackery?

Huey » 06 Jan 2026, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:57 pm

Well, you are going to have to investigate and prosecute Obama and his military leadership if you are going agter double tap strikes:

Drones kill rescuers in 'double tap', say activists

• Published
  22 October 2013

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=flr

Double-Tap Warfare: Should President Obama Be Investigated for War Crimes? 

A “double-tap” drone strike involves bombing a target, waiting a period of five to twenty minutes, often during which first responders arrive, and then bombing the target a second or even third time. This Note argues that such attacks, by virtue of their indiscriminate nature, are likely serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which prohibits targeting civilians, the wounded, or those placed hors de combat. 

I don't believe there is statute of limitations on this. So, are you game to go after them as well?

i could care less.

all I know is that you are against  free speech whenever it is against trump and kelly was correct what he said so to protect trump you bring up all of a sudden what happened 15 years ago. 
 

Huey » 06 Jan 2026, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:57 pm

Well, you are going to have to investigate and prosecute Obama and his military leadership if you are going agter double tap strikes:

Drones kill rescuers in 'double tap', say activists

• Published
  22 October 2013

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=flr

Double-Tap Warfare: Should President Obama Be Investigated for War Crimes? 

A “double-tap” drone strike involves bombing a target, waiting a period of five to twenty minutes, often during which first responders arrive, and then bombing the target a second or even third time. This Note argues that such attacks, by virtue of their indiscriminate nature, are likely serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which prohibits targeting civilians, the wounded, or those placed hors de combat. 

I don't believe there is statute of limitations on this. So, are you game to go after them as well?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/docu ... ma-at-war/

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 4:25 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 4:25 pm

**** Trump. If Biden had the spine and/or marbles and blew the **** out of them it would've garnered praise from many quarters. But PC was all that administration was about. Nothing practical.
See what I mean about partisan hackery?

maga is what trump is all about and maga says no matter what trump does.says is right, trump stopped food stamps to all homeless people which includes vets but no trump supporter says a thing about that,

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 3:36 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:36 pm

Ok. Did that happen? IDK.
Combatants, criminals... no difference.

you refuse to have them show the video.

DeezerShoove » 06 Jan 2026, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 3:34 pm

I believe you are a partisan hack (like most of the MSM).
The double standard of what is allowable, legal, ethical, moral, etc changes with the party in power.
This is evident when you call out Trump but never blink when a Clinton bombs 5 separate nations or an Obama vaporizes a civilian.

Partisan hackery begets double standards. You do it without guilt.
Expect it in return without all the moralizing.

thank trump
--------------------------------------------------

• Expanded Work Mandate: Homeless individuals, along with others newly subject to the rules (such as adults aged 55-64 and veterans), must now work at least 80 hours per month, participate in qualifying education/training programs, or volunteer to maintain their eligibility for more than three months in a three-year period.
• Implementation Challenges: Public health experts note that meeting such requirements can be extremely challenging for those experiencing homelessness due to a lack of stable housing, transportation, and reliable addresses for correspondence, which could effectively exclude them from eligibility. Research suggests increasing work requirements often leads to people losing benefits due to administrative hurdles rather than increasing employment.