Sen. Elissa Slotkin receives bomb threat after urging military to 'refuse illegal orders'

[22lcidw]

The law defines illegal orders.

Trump shows highly authoritarian traits, such as when they freak out any time someone says he doesn’t have unlimited authority.

You guys think Trump defines what is legal and what isn’t.

We want to know who were/was the authoritarian or authoritarians under Joe.

 

[Nobody911]

‘Michigan State Police responded to a bomb threat at the home of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a spokesperson from her office said in a statement on Friday. The threat comes after President Donald Trump accused her and other Democratic lawmakers of "seditious behavior" that was "punishable by death."

In a statement posted to X, a spokesperson from Slotkin's office said that the senator "wasn’t home at the time" and that Michigan State Police "searched the property and confirmed that no one was in danger." Slotkin's office and Michigan State Police did not immediately respond to requests for further details on the incident.

The bomb threat comes after Slotkin, who previously worked at the CIA, and several other Democratic lawmakers, including those who are former service members, had posted a video this week urging military and intelligence officers to "refuse illegal orders" from the Trump administration.

Trump on Thursday had responded to the video by calling for the arrest of Slotkin and others for “seditious behavior,” which he said was “punishable by death.”’

Sen. Elissa Slotkin receives bomb threat after Trump 'seditious behavior' attack

Trump attacked Slotkin and other Democrats over a video they recorded urging members of the military and the intelligence community to defy illegal orders.

www.nbcnews.com

It’s perfectly lawful and appropriate for the military to refuse Trump’s illegal orders.

And Trump represents the violent, lawless right well, calling for the death of his political opponents.

What expectations do you have for the Pentagon regarding responsibility and transparency? Is such optimism warranted? lol.



Summary of the "Collateral Murder" video (WikiLeaks, April 2010)

• What it is: Classified gun‑camera footage from a U.S. Army AH‑64 Apache helicopter recorded on July 12, 2007, in Baghdad. WikiLeaks released the video under the title “Collateral Murder.”
• What the footage shows: Apache crews firing on a group of people on a Baghdad street — the engagement kills several, including two Reuters journalists — then later firing on a van that stopped to help the wounded and an individual on the rooftop of a nearby building. Radio traffic and the helicopter crews’ comments are audible.
• Key controversies raised:

- Identification and perceived threat: Critics argued the people engaged did not pose a clear hostile threat when fired upon; defenders pointed to intelligence, prior insurgent activity in the area, and perceived weapons seen on video.
- Civilian casualties: The incident resulted in civilian deaths (including journalists), prompting outrage and questions about rules of engagement and target identification.
- Helicopter crew remarks: The crews’ commentary in the footage was seen by many as callous and inflamed public reaction.
- Official response and investigations:
- The U.S. Army investigated. It found the engagement complied with the rules of engagement and that the helicopter crews acted within their authority based on what they believed at the time. No criminal charges were brought against the aircrew.
- WikiLeaks and supporters argued the release exposed wrongdoing and failures of accountability; critics condemned the unauthorized release of classified material and potential endangerment of informants and personnel.
- Aftermath and impact:
- Public debate intensified about civilian harm, transparency, and the conduct of the Iraq War.
- The incident became a focal point for discussions on wartime transparency, media coverage, whistleblowing, and the ethics of drone/helicopter strikes.
- Reuters pressed for accountability because two of its journalists were killed; the episode remains a prominent example cited in debates over civilian casualties and military conduct.

sources:

• July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike - Wikipedia
• Permission to Engage: WikiLeaks collateral murder footage examined

 

[IM2]

The right has threatened all kinds of people, yet they want to tell us that the left is violent.

 

[dudmuck]

but they admitted there was no unlawful orders, so you fail again....they admitted the admin is acting within the law

 

[struth]

Your point?

You think when he ordered the airstrike on a boat wasn’t to kill everyone on board?

 

[dudmuck]

Your point?

You think when he ordered the airstrike on a boat wasn’t to kill everyone on board?

just last week maga was complaining about democrats urging troops to refuse illegal orders.

 

[struth]

just last week maga was complaining about democrats urging troops to refuse illegal orders.

And that hasn’t changed

 

[dudmuck]

And that hasn’t changed

yes it hasnt changed, but now we know there were illegal orders.

 

[HikerGuy83]

What expectations do you have for the Pentagon regarding responsibility and transparency? Is such optimism warranted? lol.



Summary of the "Collateral Murder" video (WikiLeaks, April 2010)

• What it is: Classified gun‑camera footage from a U.S. Army AH‑64 Apache helicopter recorded on July 12, 2007, in Baghdad. WikiLeaks released the video under the title “Collateral Murder.”
• What the footage shows: Apache crews firing on a group of people on a Baghdad street — the engagement kills several, including two Reuters journalists — then later firing on a van that stopped to help the wounded and an individual on the rooftop of a nearby building. Radio traffic and the helicopter crews’ comments are audible.
• Key controversies raised:

- Identification and perceived threat: Critics argued the people engaged did not pose a clear hostile threat when fired upon; defenders pointed to intelligence, prior insurgent activity in the area, and perceived weapons seen on video.
- Civilian casualties: The incident resulted in civilian deaths (including journalists), prompting outrage and questions about rules of engagement and target identification.
- Helicopter crew remarks: The crews’ commentary in the footage was seen by many as callous and inflamed public reaction.
- Official response and investigations:
- The U.S. Army investigated. It found the engagement complied with the rules of engagement and that the helicopter crews acted within their authority based on what they believed at the time. No criminal charges were brought against the aircrew.
- WikiLeaks and supporters argued the release exposed wrongdoing and failures of accountability; critics condemned the unauthorized release of classified material and potential endangerment of informants and personnel.
- Aftermath and impact:
- Public debate intensified about civilian harm, transparency, and the conduct of the Iraq War.
- The incident became a focal point for discussions on wartime transparency, media coverage, whistleblowing, and the ethics of drone/helicopter strikes.
- Reuters pressed for accountability because two of its journalists were killed; the episode remains a prominent example cited in debates over civilian casualties and military conduct.

sources:

• July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike - Wikipedia
• Permission to Engage: WikiLeaks collateral murder footage examined

Always enjoy seeing the Taliban wiped out.

Thanks for sharing

 

[HikerGuy83]

Hey all you saps....just wanted to drop in and say that I checked the thread and once again, Jones is nowhere to be found after the OP.

Why do you respond to that left-wing, head-up-his-ass moron?

He posts and flys.

 

[GLASNOST]

Sen. Elissa Slotkin receives bomb threat after urging military to 'refuse illegal orders'​

Let's see now - making death threats or urging people to obey the law. Which one is a crime?

 

[22lcidw]

Let's see now - making death threats or urging people to obey the law. Which one is a crime?

Until we see these traitorous politicians and those around them arrested and put into prison putting some skin into the game, your comments mean nothing. Of course, they influence and advocate others to be arrested like people in the military in this case. All of this concern for foreigners and none for Americans. Especially Non-Progressives.

 

[struth]

yes it hasnt changed, but now we know there were illegal orders.

What’s the illegal order???

We were aware he ordered the airstrikes

We were aware that that’s not an illegal order

 

[j-mac]

What’s the illegal order???

We were aware he ordered the airstrikes

We were aware that that’s not an illegal order

They’re just going to repeat it, they think that makes it fact

 

[GLASNOST]

Sen. Elissa Slotkin receives bomb threat after urging military to 'refuse illegal orders'​

Let's see now - making death threats or urging people to obey the law. Which one is a crime?

Until we see these traitorous politicians and those around them arrested and put into prison putting some skin into the game, your comments mean nothing.

Are you with me or against me? Your comment is unclear to me.

Of course, they influence and advocate others to be arrested like people in the military in this case.

Are you talking about the military who issues illegal orders or the ones who disobey them? Your comment is still unclear to me.

All of this concern for foreigners and none for Americans. Especially Non-Progressives.

Now I'm really lost. I honestly do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Help me out please.

 

[22lcidw]

Are you with me or against me? Your comment is unclear to me.

Are you talking about the military who issues illegal orders or the ones who disobey them? Your comment is still unclear to me.

Now I'm really lost. I honestly do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Help me out please.

The politicians will get off scot free. They are of course part of the George Carlin "big club". The military personnel who disobey orders will have their lives ruined. From my point of view, progressives are setting us up for a slaughter of citizens.

 

[EMH]

HATE HOAX alert....

 

[GLASNOST]

The politicians will get off scot free.

They always do.

The military personnel who disobey orders will have their lives ruined.

A good thing or a bad thing?

From my point of view, progressives are setting us up for a slaughter of citizens.

I still can't work out who you are referring to. Illegal orders should be disobeyed but I don't know if that's what you are saying.

 

[22lcidw]

They always do.

A good thing or a bad thing?

I still can't work out who you are referring to. Illegal orders should be disobeyed but I don't know if that's what you are saying.

All of this depends on your views. I trust the military over the central government security, police, spy system. You love the central government dictatorial system except for ICE. That photo of Elian Gonzalez with the central government police shoving a rifle several inches from his head was an example. A six-year-old kid or so. We are so ph uked.

 

[GLASNOST]

All of this depends on your views.

I've been trying to ask you for your view but I see that you are not going to tell me.

You love the central government dictatorial system except for ICE.

Do you know who I am?