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

[Always in His Presence]

Which, Dude, Madam, is illegal. So illegal it is the exact example used in the military code as an example of illegality.

Which honey bunny - is not what the JAG officer said, nor the Navel Commander, nor the Secretary of War nor Admiral Bailey - head of the joint Special Operations Command.

Thanks for the link providing the information from the head of Joint Special Operations Command - the person who would know the most of what is and is not legal.

Rumer has it - he knows even more than posters on an internet forum!

 

[durangodawood]

Which honey bunny - is not what the JAG officer said, nor the Navel Commander, nor the Secretary of War nor Admiral Bailey - head of the joint Special Operations Command.

Thanks for the link providing the information from the head of Joint Special Operations Command - the person who would know the most of what is and is not legal.

Rumer has it - he knows even more than posters on an internet forum!

Thats it?

You will privilege people covering for the boss over your own eyes and capacity for reason?

 

[Servus]

You know there's been a whole New Testament written since then, and the rules by which Christians dispersed in the world are different from the rules of the Israelites within the boundaries of the specific physical territory granted to them in those days.

It's not a matter of rules. It's a matter of fully understanding the nature of God/Christ who never changes (Hebrews 13:8). The Bible talks about the Angel of the Lord bringing death in serval instances, and it's widely accepted that the Angel of the Lord was pre-incarnate Christ. The Biblical Christ is not the total pacifist lovey dovey flower child liberalism makes him out to be.

 

[Postvieww]

"The left's treatment of Trump?"

What?

Trump is the president of the United States living in the White House. He's on top of the whole freaking world. He's the best-treated person on earth.

Whatever "the left" might have tried to do to Trump has been so utterly unsuccessful as to be negligible. The mosquito that successfully bit me last week was worse treatment than Trump has gotten from "the left."

What planet have you been on for the last ten years? Impeachments, lawfare, assassination attempts. You are probably amazed he us still standing after all of this but no previous president in our lifetime time has endured such vitriol.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Thats it?

You will privilege people covering for the boss over your own eyes and capacity for reason?

The conspiracy forum is not here -

Unless you have this thing called proof -

 

[Servus]

Do you think the US is involved in a holy war?

That's not the point.

 

[durangodawood]

The conspiracy forum is not here -

Unless you have this thing called proof -

Theres barely any dispute about the facts of the incident. And the law is on the books for all to read - and has been presented here.

 

[BCP1928]

That's not the point.

I think it very much is the point. The US Navy is arbitrarily exterminating anonymous men, suspected smugglers, in small boats. The Navy has the power to do that. Whether they have the legal authority has been questioned, but many Christians have told me that they have the moral authority because of what the boats are smuggling and why. What is it about that smuggling operation that gives moral authority to summarily exterminate even those merely suspected of it?

 

[Servus]

At this time, killing survivors at sea is know as immoral by the entire world...except, apparently, by some Christians.

No. You misunderstood. They're not condoning the killing of survivors because they don't think that's what happened. There's lots of people Christian and non-Christian who don't or at first didn't accept that version of what happened. I doubt you'll find many saying "okay I now accept that they were helpless survivors and still think killing them was the right thing to do".

 

[Always in His Presence]

Theres barely any dispute about the facts of the incident. And the law is on the books for all to read - and has been presented here.

Do you believe JAG?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you believe JAG?

I dont not trust them over my own eyes and reasoning, especially when the question concerns their superiors.

 

[comana]

What planet have you been on for the last ten years? Impeachments, lawfare, assassination attempts. You are probably amazed he us still standing after all of this but no previous president in our lifetime time has endured such vitriol.

And no previous president in our lifetime has dished out such vitriol and he is only getting worse.

 

[Bradskii]

I was just exposing the flaws in your dramatic response.

Well, let's take the drama out of it. We'll just state the facts plainly and simply:

The two men we're talking about weren't in a boat.
The two men were floundering around in the water.
They were hanging on to a wrecked boat.
They did that for an hour.
People at a distance watched them do that for an hour.
Someone then decided to kill them.

Is that undramatic enough for you? Does that make it any easier for you to support it? Hey, I know...let's change the environment. But the same principles. The same moral position.

The two men we're talking about weren't in a truck.
The two men were crawling around on the road.
Next to a wrecked truck.
They did that for an hour.
People at a distance watched them do that for an hour.
Someone then decided to kill them.

If the first scenario is ok with you then the second should be as well.

 

[Bradskii]

When perps are in the act of committing [Schedule I] drug trafficking, the perp is responsible for all casualties which occur in that satanic process.

Then you're fine with killing drug dealers whenever they're driving across town to deliver drugs. Heck they don't even need to be driving. They can be walking down the street according to your inane position and gunned down without warning.

What exactly is the type of country you want to live in?

 

[RDKirk]

Well, let's take the drama out of it. We'll just state the facts plainly and simply:

The two men we're talking about weren't in a boat.
The two men were floundering around in the water.
They were hanging on to a wrecked boat.
They did that for an hour.
People at a distance watched them do that for an hour.
Someone then decided to kill them.

Is that undramatic enough for you? Does that make it any easier for you to support it? Hey, I know...let's change the environment. But the same principles. The same moral position.

The two men we're talking about weren't in a truck.
The two men were crawling around on the road.
Next to a wrecked truck.
They did that for an hour.
People at a distance watched them do that for an hour.
Someone then decided to kill them.

If the first scenario is ok with you then the second should be as well.

This is where we have to make note of the separate developments of the laws of land warfare and the laws of sea warfare.

It's very conceivable that the two men on the road would get help. It's a road, after all, and both their chances of extended survival and rescue are fairly high.

OTOH, for men at sea, the chances of extended survival and rescue are close to nil.

 

[Bradskii]

So please forgive me sir, as I work hard locating my compassion like you have for the perps. So far, I've been unsuccessful in my search.

Well, lucky you. You're actually on a Christian site, so someone may be along shortly to help you with that.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently now calling for help when shipwrecked and floating in cold water is a hostile action.

'Sir, direct it. Mission accomplished'.
'Hang on, are those two men in the water? They may be calling for help'
'Sir, the boat is a flaming wreck'
'But what if they do call for help and other drug runners turn up?'
'Umm, then I guess we blow them up as well, sir'
'Well, look - I'm going for lunch. Keep an eye on them and if they haven't drowned by the time I get back..'
'Yes sir?'
'Kill them'.

 

[Bradskii]

This is where we have to make note of the separate developments of the laws of land warfare and the laws of sea warfare.

I appreciate that. Obviously there is a difference. Which I'm highlighting. Because we've now got to the point where people are saying that people dealing in drugs should be summarily killed. And survivors of any action executed. Period. If that's the case then why differentiate between them being on a boat off Venezuela or in the harbour at Boston, in a truck driving I90 or walking across town?

 

[Say it aint so]

Which honey bunny - is not what the JAG officer said, nor the Navel Commander, nor the Secretary of War nor Admiral Bailey - head of the joint Special Operations Command.

Thanks for the link providing the information from the head of Joint Special Operations Command - the person who would know the most of what is and is not legal.

Rumer has it - he knows even more than posters on an internet forum!

Let me understand this. The JAG officer said the very example of what is illegal as used in the military code training, is not illegal.
There is a reason why the Trump admin purged JAG officers who they thought would be an obstruction. You know, as in those clearing their throats to speak up when things are illegal.

 

[Hank77]

My understanding is that the survivors were trying to access another vessel. But as in any military or police operation, munitions firing is carried out to ensure complete safety. I.e. it's not a quota of shots & you're done.

If that were true, the Navy would have just blown up the second vessel to ensure complete safety.