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

[Factotum]

Yep, you want your military lawyers bowing to the political tides and ideology of whoever happens to be in power at the time ...!

Sir can you please list a Presidential Administration, after the day of 14jun1775, where military lawyers did NOT bow to the political tides and ideology of whoever happened to be in power at that time?

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm sure that will somehow get "updated" in the near future.

 

[wing2000]

Thanks, but I can't take credit for those facts. lol

You gotta credit Congressional Acts, like IRTPA'04 and USAPA'01...

The term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B)appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Factotum]

The term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B)appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

Thanks! I think Trump DoD probably used this one:

...involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life (Schedule 1 drugs?) that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State...

.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Sir can you please list a Presidential Administration, after the day of 14jun1775, where military lawyers did NOT bow to the political tides and ideology of whoever happened to be in power at that time?

Shoot, I'm more interested in what presidential administration existed on 14 June 1775.

 

[wing2000]

Thanks! I think Trump DoD probably used this one:

...involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life (Schedule 1 drugs?) that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State...

.

All three condtions A, B & C must be met. You (and Trump) don't get to pick and chose.

 

[Factotum]

Shoot, I'm more interested in what presidential administration existed on 14 June 1775.

LOL
remember now, I was referencing the time period 14jun1775 - 09dec2025.

 

[Factotum]

All three condtions A, B & C must be met. You (and Trump) don't get to pick and chose.

I think you have me mistaken, good friend. I dont get to pick nor choose a thing.
Just like you and I don't get to be hypocritical on how to combat terrorism when 2021-2024 Sec of State labels terrorists, vs when 2025-2028 Sec of State labels terrorists.

And yes indeed, all conditions you listed are met when it comes to Schedule 1 drugs Venezuelens deliver to the USA to kill vulnerable citizens. By which revenue is used to fund drug cartels like the Sinoloa --where 'Somebody' avoided impeachment over the imbecilic, Operation Fast & Furious results.

 

[RDKirk]

Sir can you please list a Presidential Administration, after the day of 14jun1775, where military lawyers did NOT bow to the political tides and ideology of whoever happened to be in power at that time?

The last 30 years of the 20th century.

 

[wing2000]

I think you have me mistaken, good friend. I dont get to pick nor choose a thing.

Agreed. But tell me, what is the intent of drug cartels?

Is it to:



(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;


....or, perhaps, make a profit on an illegal substance?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

LOL
remember now, I was referencing the time period 14jun1775 - 09dec2025.

Okay, so why include 5070 days in which there was no U.S. President? I mean, if you want a bigger spread, just go back to 12 October 1492.

 

[RDKirk]

Agreed. But tell me, what is the intent of drug cartels?

Is it to:



(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;


....or, perhaps, make a profit on an illegal substance?

I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.

 

[durangodawood]

I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.

So has it often been with organized crime.

Still, if we are going to bring acts of war rather than law enforcement upon organized crime groups, then congress need to take the lead, as the constitution prescribes.

But why would the Trump admin wait for that when loads of its base in the electorate and in congress are more loyal to the man than to the constitution?

 

[Factotum]

The last 30 years of the 20th century.

If you mean 1969 - 1999, can you give some examples?? I can't seem to find any military counsels' refusals to bow down when I consider thing's like... Vietnam, Libya 1986, Desert Storm, etc...

 

[RDKirk]

If you mean 1969 - 1999, can you give some examples?? I can't seem to find any military counsels' refusals to bow down when I consider thing's like... Vietnam, Libya 1986, Desert Storm, etc...

You must not have been on the inside.

The entire current LOAC training regimen for the armed services was created as a result of the My Lai incident. Because of their LOAC training, a high percentage of soldiers can personally testify of refusing illegal orders in the field. You don't hear about it because it goes nowhere...nobody gets prosecuted for refusing to obey a manifestly illegal order.

The absolute confidentiality of chaplains was emphasized to give troops a safe space to discuss legal misgivings to someone in uniform who could arrange assistance. I sent troops more than once to the chaplain to avoid them spilling too much information to me, because I did not have confidentiality...I was required to report to the commander.

Regarding our getting into conflict, remember I've already pointed out that where and who we fight is not up to the military...the president and Congress determine that. The military determines how the war is fought, and that discussion is held in the commander's office. What in the world makes you think you'd be privy to what is said in a commander's office?

Even so, In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the military dragged its feet as much as possible hoping Congress would reject the war. The Army Chief of Staff even got himself fired for publicly disputing the SecDef. The Marine Corps commandant started that public dispute, then retired in protest. In fact, all the generals who had been junior officers in Vietnam retired just ahead of the Iraq invasion. The DIA even leaked information in conflict with the SecDef's public statements. Unfortunately, nobody was paying attention...so that's why you din't hear of it.

 

[Factotum]

Agreed. But tell me, what is the intent of drug cartels?

Is it to:



(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;


....or, perhaps, make a profit on an illegal substance?

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population called migrants entering our southern borders via kidnappings, abuses, extortion, charging illegal passage fees, etc
(ii) to influence the policy of a government/our Liberal-Democrat, DNC party members by coercion --or intimidation at least
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by using BIGGER EVILS THAN mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping such as ...by corrupting officials, destabilizing regions, funding extremist activities, causing massive nat security & military spending, diverting resources, and fleecing the rule of law. Leading to increased violence, erosion of social capacity via disturbingly-high drug use. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT ALL FUNDS insurgencies or terrorirism cells.

 

[Factotum]

Okay, so why include 5070 days in which there was no U.S. President?

Because I did not want to go off topic here

 

[BCP1928]

I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.

Of course they do. Indeed, they exercise what amounts to national sovereignty over large territories. The trouble is, that if we are waging an actual war against them on that basis, killing those two men in their wrecked boat would still be illegal.

 

[RDKirk]

The trouble is, that if we are waging an actual war against them on that basis, killing those two men in their wrecked boat would still be illegal.

I've been saying that all along.

 

[BCP1928]

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population called migrants entering our southern borders via kidnappings, abuses, extortion, charging illegal passage fees, etc

What are these migrants supposed to do when they get in? Shoot government officials? Blow things up?

(ii) to influence the policy of a government/our Liberal-Democrat, DNC party members by coercion --or intimidation at least
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by using BIGGER EVILS THAN mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping such as ...by corrupting officials, destabilizing regions, funding extremist activities, causing massive nat security & military spending, diverting resources, and fleecing the rule of law. Leading to increased violence, erosion of social capacity via disturbingly-high drug use. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT ALL FUNDS insurgencies or terrorirism cells.

Why should we let them do that?