Now does everyone understand why the "right to refuse illegal orders" video was made?

[Factotum]

Of course. Legally they are "terrorists." Actually, they are not, calling them "terrorists" is just a fairy story concocted by morally bankrupt Christian nationalists to justify their summary execution.

Oh, okay. In that case, I have 2 questions for you...

Firstly, can you lay out whats properly "concocted" to define those humans in the boat? Since your post gives the appearance that they are the opposite of, or greater than, something despicable like --morally bankrupt Christians.
And can you give your thoughts on the impact of the Schedule 1 drugs they feed to Americans, if you do NOT feel it is terrorism?

 

[Factotum]

Obama was not, however, targeting "innocent civilians." And you probably don't understand the difference, or you don't care about the difference...

Or, do you comprehend that the Trump DoD also was not targeting innocent civilians? Please, help me rationalize any doublestandard you perfected here.

 

[DaisyDay]

Do you believe JAG?

The top military lawyers in JAG were purged. The ones who remained were spared for a reason.

 

[DaisyDay]

Oh, okay. In that case, I have 2 questions for you...

Firstly, can you lay out whats properly "concocted" to define those humans in the boat? Since your post gives the appearance that they are the opposite of, or greater than, something despicable like --morally bankrupt Christians.
And can you give your thoughts on the impact of the Schedule 1 drugs they feed to Americans, if you do NOT feel it is terrorism?

They don't "feed" them to Americans - Americans seek out the dealers to give them money to voluntarily obtain the drugs. This is commerce, not terrorism - albeit black market commerce.

Masked armed guys disappearing people off the streets is terrorism, state terrorism.

 

[Factotum]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about "designations."

It's possible for one group to be designated in more than one way under more than one governmental dispensation.

The State Department can designate a group a "terrorist organization" for their purposes.

For the military, an organization designated a "terrorist organization" by the State Department puts them in the "unprivileged belligerent" category for the purposes of the Law of Armed Conflict.

So, Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization and because of that designation, the members of Al Qaeda are "unprivileged belligerents" under the LOAC.

I think you possibly explained the wrong distinction, one that is not being questioned.

I'm just trying to find out if there's a way for our DoD to disregard whatever our President and State Dept deem allowable to end any threats called certified terrorists when they helping kill Americans while posing as unprivileged belligerents.

 

[BCP1928]

I think you possibly explained the wrong distinction, one that is not being questioned.

I'm just trying to find out if there's a way for our DoD to disregard whatever our President and State Dept deem allowable to end any threats called certified terrorists when they helping kill Americans while posing as unprivileged belligerents.

You would have to understand why they were designated terrorists when the are clearly not and that requires knowing what Trump's plan is for the task force he has assembled off the coast of Venezuela. If he has one.

 

[Factotum]

They don't "feed" them to Americans - Americans seek out the dealers to give them money to voluntarily obtain the drugs. This is commerce, not terrorism - albeit black market commerce.

I am wondering if it really is as 'black and white' as you think it is within your words there.
Because your words give the appearance that this (below) is a unilateral approach, and is at odds with all political leaders who are anti-Trump:

Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists

DESIGNATING CARTELS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS By the authority vested in me as

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Factotum]

...they were designated terrorists when they are clearly not ...

Then, is this (below) just Trump's imagination and is not inline with real life thinking nor any veracious events?

Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists

DESIGNATING CARTELS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS By the authority vested in me as

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Factotum]

Does anyone here think State Dept head, Hillary Clinton, did not need to mention that Venezuelan perps are exempt from her idea here?

Clinton says Mexico drug wars starting to look like insurgency

Clinton says Mexico drug wars starting to look like insurgency

www.latimes.com

 

[DaisyDay]

I am wondering if it really is as 'black and white' as you think it is within your words there.

Are you disputing that American drug users seek out the dealers and give them money in exchange for goods? What shades of grey do you think would be more accurate?

Because your words give the appearance that this (below) is a unilateral approach, and is at odds with all political leaders who are anti-Trump:

What? How do my words give that "appearance"? What is at odds with all political leaders who are "anti-Trump", which encompasses a multitude of variations and flavors - one size does not fit all?

Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists

DESIGNATING CARTELS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIALLY DESIGNATED GLOBAL TERRORISTS By the authority vested in me as

www.whitehouse.gov

Is this legal here or internationally?

 

[BCP1928]

Oh, okay. In that case, I have 2 questions for you...

Firstly, can you lay out whats properly "concocted" to define those humans in the boat?

They were anonymous humans suspected of smuggling Columbian cocaine from Venezuala to Surinam for onward shipment to Europe. That is what US intelligence makes of it, anyway. If you want a characterization from me, it would be that they are criminal gangsters engaged in illegal smuggling operations.

Since your post gives the appearance that they are the opposite of, or greater than, something despicable like --morally bankrupt Christians.

That's just your Manichaean bias showing.

And can you give your thoughts on the impact of the Schedule 1 drugs they feed to Americans, if you do NOT feel it is terrorism?

The same as if it was terrorism. People are becoming addicted to illegal drugs either way.

 

[Say it aint so]

I think Trump has gotten down to the level where the JAG officers are hoping to just keep their heads down and out of his sights through his term. Some of them are not going to be successful at that.

Yes. Be it the military, the DOJ, or what ever government function. They don't worry about getting fired because they aren't up to the task of their job. Their concern is getting fired for not loyally doing the current admins bidding.

 

[RDKirk]

Or, do you comprehend that the Trump DoD also was not targeting innocent civilians? Please, help me rationalize any doublestandard you perfected here.

As I've said before, at this point targeting these speedboats is technically legal because the President says so and Congress has not (as a body) disputed him. That's how the Constitution is written.

If people don't like the fact that Congress has, so far, tacitly approved the president's decision...well, that's what the mid-term elections are for. The military has no Constitutional authority to weigh in on the question of who we're fighting today. When the president gives that order and gets Congressional approval (however tacitly), the military must obey.

How the military fights, however, is governed by laws Congress has already legislated. That's what this particular thread is about. That's covered by the Law of Armed Conflict, which is compendium of the laws passed by Congress and the treaties ratified by Congress.

There is another thread about whether the US should target Venezuelan speedboats.

This thread is about how the US should target Venezuelan speedboats.

 

[Factotum]

There is another thread about whether the US should target Venezuelan speedboats.

This thread is about how the US should target Venezuelan speedboats.

Semantics?
Considering how the overarching issue here clearly encompasses BOTH scenarios no doubt.

 

[RDKirk]

Semantics?
Considering how the overarching issue here clearly encompasses BOTH scenarios no doubt.

I just totally explained why it's not merely a semantic difference.

The difference is who is authorized to make the determinations and who can be held accountable for them.

That's not a merely semantic difference...it determines who can be held accountable for what.

 

[RDKirk]

Related to this subject, I've been looking at some cases of German officers during WWII who refused to execute civilians and prisoners of war when ordered. There are about 100 documented instances. Interestingly, most of these documented cases showed unexpected leniency from the German military, even though most of them went all the way to Himmler himself. Some resulted barely an administrative slap on the hand.

One interesting case is that of Nikolaus Ernst Franz Hornig, a German officer of the police force during WWII who rejected criminal orders, and what happened to him during and after the war.

Hornig was born on 11 December 1907. He studied law, then entered the Prussian police around 1930 as an officer candidate. By the time of WWII, he held at least the rank of lieutenant and served in a police-battalion. In 1941, his unit was ordered to carry out mass executions of 780 Soviet prisoners of war.

Hornig refused to obey the order. He argued that executing defenseless prisoners was an illegal and criminal order under German military law, citing the relevant military code, “Paragraph 47” which allowed refusal of illegal orders.

He went so far as to training his subordinates in the law, teaching them they had the right, indeed the duty, to disobey unlawful orders. As a result of his refusal, he was charged with “Wehrkraftzersetzung” (undermining the fighting‑spirit or readiness) and “incitement” through example and speech. I think the current US administration would call it "sedition."

In late 1942, he was sentenced to several years in prison; subsequently he was moved to the concentration camp Buchenwald, where he remained until the end of WWII. His imprisonment was at a higher level of comfort than that of the other prisoners, however.

He survived the war, and after liberation by Allied force, Hornig was detained by the Americans as a “witness/prisoner” rather than punished as a criminal, due to his documented refusal of illegal orders and non-participation in war crimes. His case shows that even inside a genocidal regime there were individuals who refused to commit atrocities, and invoked pre-existing legal–moral codes against unlawful orders. That contradicts the commonly heard excuse that “they had no choice but to follow orders.”

Unfortunately, Hornig wasn't treated so well by the West German government after the war. After the war, bureaucratic and political dynamics in West Germany meant many former resisters were not promoted. Hornig apparently experienced such marginalization. He tried to re-enter police work and saw ex-Nazis who had actually served post-war prison sentences getting better treatment in West German civil service than he got. I suspect that his role as a "witness/prisoner" still made him look like a traitor to Germany (even though Nazi Germany) in their eyes.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The top military lawyers in JAG were purged. The ones who remained were spared for a reason.

all that needs not to be a conspiracy theory is verifiable proof. Got any?

 

[Gene2memE]

all that needs not to be a conspiracy theory is verifiable proof. Got any?

From February:
"Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced late Friday evening the firings of the top legal officers for the military services -- those responsible for ensuring the Uniform Code of Military Justice is followed by commanders -- as well as the Joint Chiefs chairman, the Navy's top officer and Air Force vice chief.

...

Hegseth told reporters Monday that the removals were necessary because he didn't want them to pose any "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief."

'People Are Very Scared': Trump Administration Purge of JAG Officers Raises Legal, Ethical Fears | Military.com

www.military.com

March:
The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is expected in the coming weeks to start a sweeping overhaul of the judge advocate general’s corps as part of an effort to make the US military less restricted by the laws of armed conflict, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Pete Hegseth to overhaul US military lawyers in effort to relax rules of war

The defense secretary has empowered his lawyer Tim Parlatore to remake the judge advocate general’s corps

www.theguardian.com

March:
This insularity has long been seen as a safeguard against political pressure, ensuring that military legal advice remains independent. But it also means that when legal interpretations do not align with an administration’s policy goals, there is no mechanism for resolving that conflict — except for the kind of sweeping firings we just witnessed.

The secretary’s decision, whether intentional or not, highlights an uncomfortable pair of questions:

If JAGs function in a manner similar to civilian legal advisors who help implement executive policy, should their selection process be more transparent? And if we acknowledge that military legal advice plays a role in legitimizing or obstructing policy, can we still assume that JAG selection should be insulated from the administration?

None of this is to say that the secretary’s decision was the right approach. Blanket firings based on perceived policy misalignment, rather than demonstrated misconduct or incompetence, create serious risks.

After JAG firings, a difficult truth about military legal independence - Breaking Defense

Maj. Trent Kubasiak, an Army JAG officer, says the decision by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to fire the top three service JAGs should lead to a moment of reflection among military lawyers.

breakingdefense.com

April
"In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force’s and Army’s top judge advocates general (JAGs). Last month, he commissioned his personal lawyer as a Navy JAG. He is now reportedly paving the way to make major changes within the JAG Corps—including how military lawyers advise on the law of war and prosecute those who violate it."

A ‘Sweeping Overhaul’ of the JAG Corps Poses Likely Dangers

Hegseth’s planned changes could have serious consequences for how the U.S. military operates and holds service members accountable.

www.lawfaremedia.org

October
But when looking for the JAGS’ replacements, Hegseth’s staff prioritized questions about whether candidates agreed with former President Joe Biden’s policies rather than their interpretations of law, the former official and another person familiar with the interviews said. Candidates were asked, for example, how they felt about requiring COVID-19 vaccines for troops and allowing transgender troops to serve, the sources said.

Current and former defense officials told CNN they believe the interviews amounted to “political litmus tests.” Two of the JAG officers CNN spoke to said that they have become increasingly nervous about vocalizing their independent legal opinions because they’re worried about getting fired.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/15/politics/pentagon-lawyers-sidelined-jags

 

[Factotum]

...when looking for the JAGS’ replacements, Hegseth’s staff prioritized questions about whether candidates agreed with former President Joe Biden’s policies rather than their interpretations of law...

That was a very clever thing to do by Hegseth. When you consider our nation's negligent National Security and DoD objectives, 2021-'24.

 

[Factotum]

That's not a merely semantic difference...it determines who can be held accountable for what.

I can appreciate that, too.
Nonetheless, I disagree that they are separable issues or separate issues. You can't decide to do something without simultaneously thinking through how to do it/how to be successful at it. Those are the exact elements which create the decision to NOT do something or to do something.