6 Dem congressmen/woman call for INSURRECTION against the trump administration

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

wrong the boats are known to carry drugs bound for the US and crewed by narco terrorists that are legal targets.

.

Per CIA intel.

.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

"Dissing the link" is not a strong or salient rebuttal. From the link:

Videos/Pic: Biden-Harris admin approves military use of lethal force on US citizens: Report

The Biden-Harris admin's latest DoD directive is accused of authorizing the U.S. military to use lethal force against American citizens.

americanmilitarynews.com

"The Biden-Harris administration’s latest DoD directive has been accused of authorizing the U.S. military to use lethal force against American citizens."

Biden/Harris did more than approve using military lethal force against citizens, they AUTHORIZED it. Seemingly you only read what agrees with your POV.

Stupidity.

We have to start calling out stupidity when stupidity shows itself. You guys need to be shamed into some kind of sensibility so you stop believing your BS sources that just completely mislead and lie to you. Approach your sources with the skepticism that you approach the conclusions of world wide science. This kind of thing is why Trump literally gets away with launching a scam cyrpto coin the day before his inauguation to scam his own voterbase...because of stupidity.

You are just completing wrong, and your claim is a based on a total misreading of the DoD directive.

Here is a link to the directive that you are talking about:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/524001p.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

As another commenter kindly put it, did Republican rescind that directive? Did they change it greatly? No, they didn't, because there isn't actually a problem with it.....

From your link:
The directive gives the Pentagon authority to approve “assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury.”

Yes, that sentence is in the directive. But they are ignoring the context. That line is not an authorization to use lethal force. It’s a requirement for extra approval and legal review when a civilian agency requests support that might involve dangerous equipment.

The directive does not authorize new force. It sets restrictions, oversight, and approval requirements for existing assistance. It also explicitly requires compliance with U.S. law.

Nothing in this directive authorizes force on U.S. citizens.

What other quotes from your link would you like me to analyze?

 

[0311]

Irrelevant to this discussion which is about the false statements about troops considering whether Trump's orders are illegal or legal since the President does not give orders to the troops but only to the Minister of Defense or the chief of Staff, so all questions about the legality of the order would be settled long before the troops heard about it. The only question to be answered here is whether these Dem politicians are merely irresponsible political propagandists or trying to incite rebellion in the military, and the only way to settle this issue is to indict them for sedition and le a court decide.

Totally ******* relevant asshole!. Both U.S.M.J. and the U.S.M.C.M. are very clear on unarmed civilians violates both. YOU never ******* served an it ******* shows!

 

[Delldude]

that isnt illegal

Is in his head...... Fed district justice said so........

 

[Leo123]

Stupidity.

We have to start calling out stupidity when stupidity shows itself. You guys need to be shamed into some kind of sensibility so you stop believing your BS sources that just completely mislead and lie to you. Approach your sources with the skepticism that you approach the conclusions of world wide science. This kind of thing is why Trump literally gets away with launching a scam cyrpto coin the day before his inauguation to scam his own voterbase...because of stupidity.

You are just completing wrong, and your claim is a based on a total misreading of the DoD directive.

Here is a link to the directive that you are talking about:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/524001p.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

As another commenter kindly put it, did Republican rescind that directive? Did they change it greatly? No, they didn't, because there isn't actually a problem with it.....

From your link:
The directive gives the Pentagon authority to approve “assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury.”

Yes, that sentence is in the directive. But they are ignoring the context. That line is not an authorization to use lethal force. It’s a requirement for extra approval and legal review when a civilian agency requests support that might involve dangerous equipment.

The directive does not authorize new force. It sets restrictions, oversight, and approval requirements for existing assistance. It also explicitly requires compliance with U.S. law.

Nothing in this directive authorizes force on U.S. citizens.

What other quotes from your link would you like me to analyze?

So, you are falsely projecting YOUR 'context'.....That is so stupid and your assumption that authorization is needed for lethal force is laughable. If you ever get threatened with death causing violence (and I hope you do not) are you going to petition to someone before defending yourself? Stupid gets you killed.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Totally ******* relevant asshole!. Both U.S.M.J. and the U.S.M.C.M. are very clear on unarmed civilians violates both. YOU never ******* served an it ******* shows!

I assume you are trying to say Venezuelan drug runners are unarmed civilians but by the time the order was given to blow up the drug carrying ships the government and the high military command had both decided the order was quite legal, so when these Dem politicians advised soldiers no to follow order until they were sure they were legal, they appear to be trying to incite rebellion in the military, which is sedition, and the only way to sort this out is to indict them for sedition and let a court decide if they are merely irresponsible political propagandists or are guilty of sedition against the US government.

 

[g5000]

View attachment 1186671

Oh, lookee. Someone created something for you to copy and paste!

How...convenient.

This tell me the Epstein Files are scaring the shit out of someone.


You know what we haven't talked about for 9 years now?















.
Trump's Obamacare replacement.

You're gonna love my health care plan, bleev me. It will be terrific. ObamaCare is a disaster. Total. Disaster. I can't wait to run this guy out of town on a rail, folks. (cheers, applause, hoots) Won't it be great? No more Obama! (yeehaws, applause) You're gonna get tired of winning, that I can tell you. My beautiful health care plan will cure cancer. It will pay for my daughter's fake tits. And no Mexicans will ever be able to get insurance again! (wild stomping, cheers) We are going to build more hospitals, more clinics, hire more doctors, and hot nurses, I promised hot nurses didn't I? (laughter) Yeah! I love nurses. Sometimes I wish I was as sick as Hillary so I could visit some nurses, you know what I mean? (laughter, applause, "locker up! locker up!") You got that right! Locker up!

And that's my health care plan, folks. What do you think? Do you love it? (applause, cheers, whistles, music) It's beautiful! BEAUTIFUL!
.

 

[IM2]

Stop believing Trump and his aadministration.

Trump DOJ overrules lawyer who warned boat strikes could 'legally expose' military: report​

Officials in President Donald Trump's Department of Justice overruled a senior military lawyer who warned that the administration's strikes on alleged drug traffickers in international waters could "legally expose" service members, according to a new report.

NBC News reported on Wednesday that the lawyer, who is unnamed in the report, serves as the senior judge advocate general, or JAG in military parlance, at U.S. Southern Command in Miami. The report adds that the lawyer began raising concerns about the strikes in August, but was overruled by officials at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, citing six sources familiar with the matter.

MSN

Trump Ignored Top Military Lawyer on Illegal Boat Strikes​

Even the top military lawyer for the command overseeing President Donald Trump’s strikes on alleged “drug boats” thought they were illegal—but the Pentagon ignored him.

MSN

Top military lawyer concerned about Trump ‘drug boat’ strikes was ignored: report

The senior judge advocate general reportedly raised concerns that the airstrikes against the alleged ‘narco-terrorists’ could amount to extrajudicial killings

www.independent.co.uk

Trump’s Team Didn’t Care That Deadly Boat Strikes Could Be Illegal

A new report sheds light on what went on behind the scenes.

newrepublic.com

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

So, you are falsely projecting YOUR 'context'.....That is so stupid and your assumption that authorization is needed for lethal force is laughable. If you ever get threatened with death causing violence (and I hope you do not) are you going to petition to someone before defending yourself? Stupid gets you killed.

This directive increases oversight compared to what exsisted before. IT INCREASES OVERSIGHT.

This is ridiculous that you are using this as some sort of argument that Biden authorized use of lethal force on US citizens.

This is not context switching. This is that your arugment has no ground, and is frankly, ******* stupid. Any amount of research you do on this should result in your realizing that your argument has no ground.

 

[Lesh]

wrong the boats are known to carry drugs bound for the US and crewed by narco terrorists that are legal targets.

Those are claims.

No one has listed the occupants nor recovered any fentanyl.

Reports are that some if not all were carrying cocaine

 

[Delldude]

This tell me the Epstein Files are scaring the shit out of someone.

Yeah your boys on the left for failing to have any concern for the victims when they had the reins.....

 

[Lesh]

If they were illegal, dems would make more noise than releasing the Epstein Files.

Take it to the bank.

One has nothing to do with the other

 

[SeaMajor7]

Since everyone is fussing about ORDERS....
Who the **** gave the ORDERS to the Capitol Police to open the Capitol Building and LET PROTESTORS INSIDE on J/6?
Who GAVE THE ORDERS to FIRE on the crowd outside?
Who GAVE THE ORDERS to escort Buffalo Man to the House Chamber?
The demented LEFT have selective OUTRAGE over ILLEGAL ORDERS.

 

[Delldude]

One has nothing to do with the other

The point you missed does.

The lefts main goal with Epstein wasn't transparency, it was to distract from Trump's successes moving forward and hopefully gain them an advantage for the midterms.

Proof of this is if they were so serious in transparency and justice for the victims, they had every chance to when the dems were in control 2021-2023.

Granted, Trump campaigned on releasing the files but that doesn't change the fact that if the dems were so concerned about the victims and transparency, they had their chance and chose not to. What they've done was for purely a political outcome.

So where's all the noise about the operation in the Caribbean?
Committees have been briefed, no one has claimed laws are being broken. At best, it was claimed they didn't learn enough about the operation, but at the same time nobody's claiming laws are being broken.

DUH

 

[Delldude]

Since everyone is fussing about ORDERS....
Who the **** gave the ORDERS to the Capitol Police to open the Capitol Building and LET PROTESTORS INSIDE on J/6?
Who GAVE THE ORDERS to FIRE on the crowd outside?
Who GAVE THE ORDERS to escort Buffalo Man to the House Chamber?
The demented LEFT have selective OUTRAGE over ILLEGAL ORDERS.

USCP was found to have violated rules and engagement protocols. The head was thrown under the bus and anything he said after that was characterized as outright lies.

 

[Mac1958]

"Insurrection"



Military Law Task Force - FAQ on Refusing Illegal Orders

1. Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?

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.

 

[RicOShea]

This is a call for treason but democrats know the press will always take their side. If republicans had tried this 2 years ago . . .

Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

Six congressional Democrats called for the military and the intelligence community to

dailycaller.com

They said unlawful orders you idiot.

 

[Edgetho]

I assume you are trying to say Venezuelan drug runners are unarmed civilians but by the time the order was given to blow up the drug carrying ships the government and the high military command had both decided the order was quite legal, so when these Dem politicians advised soldiers no to follow order until they were sure they were legal, they appear to be trying to incite rebellion in the military, which is sedition, and the only way to sort this out is to indict them for sedition and let a court decide if they are merely irresponsible political propagandists or are guilty of sedition against the US government.

Hey Guys! We just got word that the US Military can't blow us up! We're good to go...... oooooops

 

[Delldude]

"Insurrection"



Military Law Task Force - FAQ on Refusing Illegal Orders

1. Do I have the right to refuse illegal orders?

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.

What unlawful orders have been given that congress felt so compelled to create political theater over?

Or are the dems attempting to usurp chain of command?

Good you ignorant af piece of Trump shit. They said unlawful orders you idiot.

What unlawful orders have been given?

 

[Edgetho]

Good you ignorant af piece of Trump shit. They said unlawful orders you idiot.

Give us some examples of what orders you consider unlawful that our Soldiers should disobey.