The Seditious Ring Leader in the senate is finally asked the hard questions.

[dmallord]

18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(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—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
(b)
For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 46, 63 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, § 515(f)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3236.)

In addition they can be prosecuted under the UCMJ. If a retired officer uses their rank, reputation, or platform to influence active-duty service members to disobey lawful orders, they can be prosecuted under several UCMJ articles, most notably Articles 92, 94, and 134. Look them up for yourself.

That's correct. And none of these paragraphs were violated by any of the six congress members, one a military combat veteran, being maligned by the current secretary of defense, or is it war?

Newscasters have cited background on this matter stemming from a naval JAG officer raising questions about the alleged drug boat attacks. He was removed from the decision process as a result of it. Fuck regulations, it seems, it's about obeying orders, not questioning the legality of them.

Perhaps it was foresight over the current imbroglio occurring in the Venezuelan drug boat killings. You know, when an alleged enemy vessel was targeted and neutralized? The one where post op surveillance found survivors, and the order came down to annihilate the disabled vessel and survivors rather than follow normal rescue procedures. The second questionable order was followed and there are no survivors, no witnesses to testify. Following Pickled Pete's orders, there were to be no survivors. Now what?

Ask yourself, now. How many violations of international and UCMJ regulations did this chain of events violate? And weigh in on who is to be held accountable?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

It’s so telling, and you make it abundantly clear:

Trump and MAGA consider it an attack on the administration to encourage soldiers to disobey illegal orders.


A responsible and appropriate response from any honest POTUS would have been, “Well yeah. Of course.”

I’ve already explained this Johnny-come-lately. The refresher is our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines don’t need a refresher course from the Seditious Six congressional morons. They already know this. The congressmen (especially AstroYoda) should know this. So what are they doing then?

Oh, BTW, any order is assumed to be legal. Might better brush up on your UCMJ…any Idea what that is?

 

[HisArpy]

I find it kind of ironic that Lit's Leftists support the seditious six. The six showed in the video that they aren't trustworthy because of their denials that they intended to incite mutiny in the military and that it was "only a general PSA."

Lit's Leftists can all point and name a BB Alt without proof but can't see sedition when it's right in front of their eyes. Instead they claim to believe the lie about it only being a PSA.

I'm wondering what other lies they'll believe from those elected officials who are denying they did what is obvious to everyone. Perhaps the denials will even be enough for the six to get reelected merely because (D) overcomes untrustworthyness.

 

[ll74]

I find it kind of ironic that Lit's Leftists support the seditious six. The six showed in the video that they aren't trustworthy because of their denials that they intended to incite mutiny in the military and that it was "only a general PSA."

Lit's Leftists can all point and name a BB Alt without proof but can't see sedition when it's right in front of their eyes. Instead they claim to believe the lie about it only being a PSA.

I'm wondering what other lies they'll believe from those elected officials who are denying they did what is obvious to everyone. Perhaps the denials will even be enough for the six to get reelected merely because (D) overcomes untrustworthyness.

Which ones support the "seditious six"? How did you determine this?

Why do you call them that?

 

[mstrman]

https://imgur.com/FuHFqEO

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Apparently you weren't paying attention, so here it is again:

. . . Trump has repeatedly proposed doing things – with the military and otherwise – that appear to be illegal. People who served with him have said he suggested illegal action. And Trump is certainly testing the bounds of the law with his use of the military even as we speak.

The big example right now is Trump’s strikes on alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean – strikes that have killed more than 80 people without a legal process. . . .

CNN has reported that both the United Nations and top allies like the United Kingdom regard the strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has echoed those claims, while other GOP senators have questioned their legality as well. The administration has also declined to publicly detail its legal justification, even as the Justice Department has produced a classified legal opinion authorizing the strikes. It has released survivors of the strikes who, if they had been kept in US custody, could have forced it to defend itself in court. Also, a top commander who CNN has reported raised questions about the legality of the strikes is now retiring early.

There is a very real question about whether the servicemembers involved in those strikes are carrying out illegal orders. And the administration has proactively avoided a more robust legal process that could settle that question.

But that’s hardly all. Here are some other key data points:

During the 2016 campaign, Trump floated having the military torture people and kill terrorists’ families. When it was posited that troops would not follow such illegal orders, Trump responded: “If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.” (He later backed off, saying he would not order people to violate international law.)

In 2020, Trump told Iran that the United States was prepared to strike Iranian cultural sites, which would likely have been considered a war crime if carried out.

In 2018, Trump’s first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said publicly after his departure that Trump had repeatedly tried to do illegal things.

In 2019, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned after clashing with Trump over his repeated desires to do things she thought might be illegal.

Former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said Trump in 2020 floated having the military shoot racial-justice protesters demonstrating near the White House in the legs.

A series of judges this year have indicated the administration has flouted or violated court orders with its deportations or its use of the National Guard on domestic soil.

Those National Guard deployments represent an extraordinary use of the military, the legality of which is still being sorted out in courtrooms across the country.

You still haven’t named an illegal order. . . .

Read the quote above. Again. Now tell me that you're not worried.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Apparently you weren't paying attention, so here it is again:

. . . Trump has repeatedly proposed doing things – with the military and otherwise – that appear to be illegal. People who served with him have said he suggested illegal action. And Trump is certainly testing the bounds of the law with his use of the military even as we speak.

The big example right now is Trump’s strikes on alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean – strikes that have killed more than 80 people without a legal process. . . .

CNN has reported that both the United Nations and top allies like the United Kingdom regard the strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has echoed those claims, while other GOP senators have questioned their legality as well. The administration has also declined to publicly detail its legal justification, even as the Justice Department has produced a classified legal opinion authorizing the strikes. It has released survivors of the strikes who, if they had been kept in US custody, could have forced it to defend itself in court. Also, a top commander who CNN has reported raised questions about the legality of the strikes is now retiring early.

There is a very real question about whether the servicemembers involved in those strikes are carrying out illegal orders. And the administration has proactively avoided a more robust legal process that could settle that question.

But that’s hardly all. Here are some other key data points:

During the 2016 campaign, Trump floated having the military torture people and kill terrorists’ families. When it was posited that troops would not follow such illegal orders, Trump responded: “If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.” (He later backed off, saying he would not order people to violate international law.)

In 2020, Trump told Iran that the United States was prepared to strike Iranian cultural sites, which would likely have been considered a war crime if carried out.

In 2018, Trump’s first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said publicly after his departure that Trump had repeatedly tried to do illegal things.

In 2019, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned after clashing with Trump over his repeated desires to do things she thought might be illegal.

Former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said Trump in 2020 floated having the military shoot racial-justice protesters demonstrating near the White House in the legs.

A series of judges this year have indicated the administration has flouted or violated court orders with its deportations or its use of the National Guard on domestic soil.

Those National Guard deployments represent an extraordinary use of the military, the legality of which is still being sorted out in courtrooms across the country.

You can puke out more useless shit than damn near anyone else on the board.

Key words. Alleged, overturned inferior court rulings, unsupported opinions.

None of that information above has you at all worried?

Remember, your Secretary of Defence is now facing an inquiry about the survivors of the boats targeted in extrajudicial killings who were slaughtered AFTER their boats were destroyed. Is that what your country does now?

 

[MajorRewrite]

Democrats: “Don’t follow illegal orders.”
MAGA sheep: “What illegal orders?!?!?”
Pickled Pete: “Hold my beer while I shoot those fishermen in the water.”

 

[Hel_Books]

Democrats: “Don’t follow illegal orders.”
MAGA sheep: “What illegal orders?!?!?”
Pickled Pete: “Hold my beer while I shoot those fishermen in the water.”

It would be amusing if it weren't so sad. Your legislators, worried (with ample reason) that illegal orders may have been or in fact were issued, recorded a video reminding soldiers and sailors that their duty to the Constitution forbids them from committing war crimes (like murdering civilians or firing missiles at people clinging to wreckage floating in the sea). Your President and his lackeys pretend to be highly offended, how dare you imply that we might give illegal orders!!!

Then it turns out that your Secretary of Defence (Oh, sorry, I meant "Secretary of War Crimes") did in fact issue an illegal order!

Unless you believe his story that he was sitting glued to the television watching the missile attack on a civilian boat, then abruptly lost interest, or decided he had to get up and pee or something and wasn't around to give the order to murder the survivors.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

It would be amusing if it weren't so sad. Your legislators, worried (with ample reason) that illegal orders may have been or in fact were issued, recorded a video reminding soldiers and sailors that their duty to the Constitution forbids them from committing war crimes (like murdering civilians or firing missiles at people clinging to wreckage floating in the sea). Your President and his lackeys pretend to be highly offended, how dare you imply that we might give illegal orders!!!

Then it turns out that your Secretary of Defence (Oh, sorry, I meant "Secretary of War Crimes") did in fact issue an illegal order!

Unless you believe his story that he was sitting glued to the television watching the missile attack on a civilian boat, then abruptly lost interest, or decided he had to get up and pee or something and wasn't around to give the order to murder the survivors.

What illegal orders were given? Quick! I’ve explained ad nauseam how this wasn’t just our legislators “concerned” about orders. This was a calculated hit by the Seditious Six. You can go look up what’s been written here. The tell is your betters have dropped that topic because it didn’t move the needle. Only the simpletons amongst us are still peddling it.

As for our Sec of War, again, give us facts, not conjecture, of an illegal order. First off, reporters aren’t allowed in the SCIF…so any “facts” you Seditious democrat Pigs are pushing are hearsay at best.

If you’re paying attention, and you’re most certainly not, this fits hand in glove with the Seditious Six video. One weekend it’s released, mid week Governors are giving stand down orders for “unlawful orders”, and the following a hit piece out of the WaPo Rag.

This is the play and it’s playing with fire. If every military interdiction is an atrocity, every drone strike is a scandal fanned by opposition politicos and Seditious Six types, it cripples our ability to defend ourselves.

Not only that, the lawyers will put us in a state of stasis that can be exploited by bad actors as people in the know like to say. Just look at how they’ve done that to thwart President Trump’s agenda. It’s unprecedented.

 

[ll74]

What illegal orders were given? .

Nobody said illegal orders were given.

Also, if nobody cares, then why are you still carrying on about it?

 

[Hel_Books]

What illegal orders were given?

Massacring survivors clinging to the wreckage floating in the ocean.

Or are you going to claim it didn't happen?

 

[HisArpy]

What illegal orders were given? Quick! I’ve explained ad nauseam how this wasn’t just our legislators “concerned” about orders. This was a calculated hit by the Seditious Six. You can go look up what’s been written here. The tell is your betters have dropped that topic because it didn’t move the needle. Only the simpletons amongst us are still peddling it.

As for our Sec of War, again, give us facts, not conjecture, of an illegal order. First off, reporters aren’t allowed in the SCIF…so any “facts” you Seditious democrat Pigs are pushing are hearsay at best.

If you’re paying attention, and you’re most certainly not, this fits hand in glove with the Seditious Six video. One weekend it’s released, mid week Governors are giving stand down orders for “unlawful orders”, and the following a hit piece out of the WaPo Rag.

This is the play and it’s playing with fire. If every military interdiction is an atrocity, every drone strike is a scandal fanned by opposition politicos and Seditious Six types, it cripples our ability to defend ourselves.

Not only that, the lawyers will put us in a state of stasis that can be exploited by bad actors as people in the know like to say. Just look at how they’ve done that to thwart President Trump’s agenda. It’s unprecedented.

^This is the Left's plan.

Until they are in power again, at which point they will expand on it and use the current acts as justification.

 

[DeluxAuto]

There was no sedition, you god damn idiots.