I'd argue organized resistance and assault on federal officers performing immigration enforcement duties is not a local criminal issue.
Outside of that, it will need to go through the courts but in light of historical civil rights issues they could probably make a case for protecting the civil rights of law-abiding citizens by cleaning up the murderers and violent felons that local DA's keep releasing onto the streets, but clearly a different argument that federal immigration enforcement.
Bear in mind, I'd like a much less powerful federal government, no FBI, no ATF, none of a dozen other agencies, and almost no federal money going to states or localities at all, but I lost that argument decades ago.
Until demoncrats ship in hundreds of thousands of people hostile to your shiny happy values and turn Utah into a hellscape like so many other places. Must be nice not to have decapitated gang victims turn up in neighboring forests in your little nirvana, but Trump is trying to clean up years of unenforced law and foreign invasion.
"....but entering a state against the governor’s wishes could be different."
Protecting Federal property when the governor is allowing violence? 'fraid not. He has authority to enforce federal law and protect federal property.
On the streets like in D.C.? You might find my answer too libertarian and brutal for your liking. Let's suffice to say give the electorate what they voted for and plenty of it.
These actions are pure provocation, akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. I view these actions as shameful and a direct violation of the oath taken by the former service members.
So, we have a bifurcated national polity. A bifurcated comment section on this Substack. And, as a lifelong Catholic, a bifurcated Catholicism. But we can all discuss calmly without drawing blood...can't we?
What should the response be to a deliberate act to mislead and destabilize our military members, weaken our forces, and plant the seeds of mutiny, in the face of absolutely no illegal orders?
The Chinese couldn't have paid for more effective disruption of our security.
Nope. He's the CINC. He didn't "overreact"; didn't mention these nitwits by name, didn't threaten. He merely pointed out that sedition may be punishable by death.
Not at all. This is the same administration that found people to pay the military when Sen. Kelly and his fellow democraps voted to not pay the military for 42 days. A good video reminding people what is at stake when you second guess your chain of command: https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1991777904053583982?s=20
Trump held the military and SNAP recipients hostage. He had the ability to redirect funds to keep the military and SNAP benefits paid but chose to play hardball with their lives to get a political victory, though it may actually turn out to be a defeat judging from the off year elections and 2026 projections.
So a continuing resolution at Biden era spending wasn’t enough for you?
The Democrats tried to force an additional $1.5 trillion dollars in Obamacare subsidies. The subsidies were supposed to temporary per covid. But once again it’s demanded to effectively make them permanent.
Rather than expect Americans be responsible and figure it out for themselves, the savior which is the Democrats aren’t the problem but the President is. From a spending bill that occurred during the Biden administration.
No, they didn't. They thought they were being cute, but the very act of what they combined and conspired to do and DID do in the video violates 18 USC 2387. Their weasel words about illegal orders don't affect that one whit because the rest of it intends to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States.
He has done absolutely nothing for his alma mater. Anyone, who has visited Kings Point recently will see a college literally falling apart.
This latest stunt would be laughable if it came from a nutcase like Jasmine Crockett. It is despicable coming from a Navy captain and NASA astronaut. Worse, Kelly is actually fundraising off this incident claiming Trump wants to hang him.
You’re missing the point Bob. Orders issued by the chain of command, from the President on down, and superior officers are presumed to be legal, unless they CLEARLY violate the:
1. Constitution
2. U.S. Law
3. UCMJ
4. Laws of Warfare
5. Geneva Convention
6. Rules of Engagement
These traitors have now put members of the military in the untenable position of questioning the legitimacy of not the President but the 6 elements above.
For that they should be stood up against the nearest brick wall, after a military tribunal of course.
In another context, that of the Comey "indictment," a federal judge just said he had to abandon the "presumption of regularity" once applied to the statements and actions of the Department of Justice. That is because the DOJ apparently has perpetrated a fraud upon the court in presenting that indictment. It's a habit of this administration, not complying with laws and norms.
How can orders be "presumed to be legal" according to your listing, when the president has said he doesn't know if he's supposed to uphold the Constitution, is in court for breaking US laws, and you have a Secretary of Defense who made his career on denigrating and denying the Law of Warfare, the Geneva Conventions, and Rules of Engagement and agitating for those who broke the UCMJ be pardoned? Not to mention that his self-styling as "Secretary of War" is contrary to US law?
Traitors? You tipped your hand. If they had used "CLEARLY" would you have been any happier? Line them up against the wall after a show trial. Sounds like a Loyalist in defense of the King responding to Thomas Paine.
One of the 6 Democrats, Rep. Jason Crow joined the Army after college and served in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and in the 75th Ranger Regiment, deploying to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if you grant that he should have known better, it does not logically follow that he should be hanged. Simply restating the law that Service members are only obligated to follow lawful orders under the UCMJ is a hard stretch to reach sedition or even a violation under Article 88 that prohibits using "contemptuous words" against a high government official.
All about him being a Democrat being investigated by a passed over drunk who couldn't cut it in the field. Simply reading the law out loud is not a crime and leaves intent to be supplied by your own black heart. Don't pretend that your response is not based on partisan hatred that is so prevalent on this site. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Ashamed to say I knew the Senator briefly when he was a JO. I was the deputy strike group leader he was assigned to on the Midway. He was a nugget (FNG) A-6 pilot. Very quiet, nothing of value to add to any targeting discussions for strikes. (Sort of like his Senatorial career).
Like others before him, he traded his fame as an astronaut for political office. Together with his spouse Gabby Giffords they've done more damage to the 2A than any other political team in US history.
Disappointing guy, as this commercial proves...as CDR Sal said, using his former and current positions to influence someone else to go down in flames while he safely stays the course in less dangerous waters.
I respectfully disagree. Sen/CAPT Kelly is one of the most level headed, serious professionals I know, as is his brother who I served with. If he is lending his name to this action, he sees dangerous shoals ahead and understands the predicament the military is now in with politicalization of its missions. He always presents himself as the most informed and non-performative of his colleagues in the Senate and at hearings. I trust his judgement magnitudes higher than some of the others who are voicing opinions one way or another. If it’s a choice between him and the SecDefs judgement (or track record), there is no choice. I’d go Kelly’s way sight unseen.
Sen Kelly's first use of political capital was to back an assault weapons bill. At the time of that backing he had an AR-15 rifle on order with Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson Arizona. That rifle would have been banned by the bill.
This is just the latest dishonorable stunt he's pulled. In my opinion, he's less than a man.
"He always presents himself as the most informed and non-performative of his colleagues in the Senate and at hearings." You gave it away. "He always presents himself..." IOW it's an act. The non-performativeness is itself a performance. "See how serious I am!" He's clearly got you fooled. Look at his actual record of legislative accomplishments, though. Pretty thin gruel.
This was permission for the military to ignore the orders of the President if it comes to it…a coup. It’s also a warning to those who would follow orders that they may someday be labeled “illegal” and you will be held accountable. If you were writing a novel or screenplay this would be in the first act of a “7 Days in May” scenario. It’s reckless, irresponsible and runs right up to the line of seditious with a wink and a smirk.
That would happen regardless. This administration’s sea blindness is the same as the others ir worse. Financial opportunity is the only reason they pay any attemtion to it.
No, you see as a member of the military your are required to carry out all legal orders. It doesn’t matter if you like them, or agree with them, you carry them out. You are also constantly briefed on what constitutes a legal order. There is no reason to tell military members that, they already know. A coup would be the military seizing power from the executive or assisting in seizing power, not lawful orders being carried out.
Directing it at Trump to “remind” him that illegal orders won’t fly would still be silly but not as cynical as inviting servicemembers to catch a court martial for unspecified reasons.
You do realize Americans have been dying for decades due to the drug trade coming in from Venezuela.
I’d rather he started with Mexico but I suspect he understands the variables with Mexico versus Venezuela and maybe the example of V changes the dynamics in Mexico
Kelley and crew, hereafter known as the Seditious Six, deserve the scorn their action has earned. They all swore an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution; that includes the authority of the President and the separation of powers. How inconvenient for them that the President is using legal actions to undo the illegal actions taken by the Democrat Party in an effort to circumvent the Constitution and preserve Democrat power. Further, their action gives cause to the weak-minded of their progressive persuasion to attempt to assassinate the President or other prominent government officials.
Honestly, I’d settle for an admin board that dragged him through a knothole and made the process the punishment. And ruin any chance of him being reelected.
Conduct unbecoming, bringing discredit to the service, the nation and border line seditious.
I won't disparage Mark Kelly's military career because it's beyond reproach but it's almost to the point of nauseating when he constantly falls back on his past successes to further his political aspirations and excuse his delusions of grandeur.
It's to the point where I wonder if Captain Mark Kelly will wonder who stole the frozen strawberries.
"Servicemembers have a duty to disobey illegal orders," is true and obvious and not disputed by any serious person. (I started to say "by anyone" and realized that wouldn't work.)
The frantic overreaction by the administration and its supporters to these legislators saying this true thing is, charitably, very strange.
This is very interesting, which is to say seemingly brand-new, legal analysis. Could you tell me where this principle exists in the statues, regs, Code, or Constitution?
Because it seems to me that 1) the executive doesn't have the power to constrain legislators' rights to state the law, 2) a statement of the principle ("illegal orders are illegal and SMs are not automatons") is much more powerful than some hypothetical about an illegal future order.
It seems extremely obvious that this tactic -- "You can't say SMs can disobey illegal orders without specifying what order you're thinking of!" -- is a crude effort to box in critics and pretend that any order other than that specified in the proposed statement *is* legal. That would be a very foolish, and very dangerous, and totally unnecessary, concession for critics of the administration (or, to put another way, defenders of the Constitution and the rule of law) to make.
Had they phrased it differently, I might even have a different opinion. Too bad they didn't. Words have meanings and actions have consequences.
So tell me, when some serviceman acts on the speech by your friend from Arizona will you defend him? We all know that the kid will be hung (figuratively) while those who incited the action will feel no repercussion from their poorly crafted script.
There are a lot of comments on this post about imaginary prosecutions, and they're all pretty dumb, but this might be the worst. If a servicemember disobey an illegal order, of course I'll defend him. If a servicemember disobeys a lawful order, of course I won't.
What I won't do is pretend that having leadership constantly denigrating the rule of law, and regularly issuing orders that at least skirt unlawfulness, is a good thing. I won't pretend that the unfit man leading the Pentagon, and the equally unfit man leading the country, are good for our Nation or our Constitution or the Services. (And I won't be distracted by the unfitness of their predecessors. Two things can be bad at the same time, and Lloyd Austin's incompetence doesn't excuse Hegseth's corruption (both moral and legal).
Well, one difference that springs to mind is that "You should desert to North Korea" is bad advice not in a servicemember's interest, and "remember no one is above the law" is the opposite of that. (Still remains quite strange that saying this is making people so upset!)
Another relevant difference is that North Korea is an enemy of the United States and Democratic congressmen are not, no matter how desperately the president and his supporters stamp their feet and yell "off with their heads."
I mean ... fine? Of course it's a political stunt? The number of statements by members of Congress that aren't about politics is pretty small.
But here's the thing: As political stunts go, publicly restating the law of the land is a bit more palatable than issuing a press release saying sitting Congressmen should be executed for same.
Would it kill Trump and his supporters to once, just once, not fly into a frothing rage every time someone disagrees with them?
Sorry, Counselor, but they specifically combined and conspired to violate 18 US Code 2387. This has nothing to do with lawyering your way around "illegal orders". The tone and content and who they directed the message to violates the statute. Legal or illegal orders and "just stating the law" doesn't enter into it because their intent in tone and construct was to interfere with the military and sow discord with the result of causing military members to disobey their duty, be insubordinate, or mutiny.
Why can I say that? Because look at what they have wrought. The former military personnel on this site do not differ in character or intellect from current military personnel...and the effect is the same on current members of the military.
I'm sure you're a good person and I'm prepared to believe you mean well, but unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about and that's impossible to overlook.
Really? Talk to Ruben Gallego about the "script"...of course they had one to coordinate the message. Coordination. Combining to violate the law.
They'll probably charge Kelly under UCMJ because they control that. Evidence will be uncovered, arguments made. Then the other 5 may well receive indictments from DOJ.
But what can't happen is to let them continue this way...either with subversion and sedition or their use of the courts and legal community in a coordinated campaign of lawfare. A campaign that far too many of you "fair minded legal scholars" have no problem with...as long as the system is perverted to go after Trump or frustrate policy you don't like.
It has to end. And that means taking on these types of issues. Mark my words and we'll talk later.
I'd also add, just to make a point, that there many restrictions on free speech. Unprotected speech includes:
- Incitement to imminent lawless action: Speech that is intended to and is likely to provoke immediate illegal acts is not protected. This would be most relevant to the video from the Dems since there is also a statute on the books prohibiting it.
- True threats: Statements that express a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group.
- Defamation: False statements of fact that harm someone's reputation.
- Obscenity and child pornography: These are not protected by the First Amendment.
- Fighting words: Speech that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from the person it is directed at.
- Commercial speech: While protected to some extent, false or misleading advertising can be prohibited.
Other restrictions and limitations include restrictions on government employees and military. The speech of government employees, prisoners, and members of the military can be restricted in certain contexts...and this is one of them.
Listen, I'm glad you're enjoying ChatGPT but it's no substitute for having a clue. This hasn't been a very productive or interesting conversation and it's getting less so, so I'm out.
The Bundeswehr teaches its members a concept they call "Innere Führung" - a concept that troops are also citizens and maintain moral responsibility for their actions and loyalty to the Constitution.
After My Lai, it's also been a component of US military training that illegal orders must be refused.
Aside from the highly questionable killing of minor criminals in the Caribbean serving as pretext for what looks to be a regime-change operation never voted for by Congress, there are several potential illegal orders which have been signaled by the Trump regime:
1. The invasion of Greenland, or the Canal Zone for that matter.
2. Military interference with Tenth Amendment state sovereignty and state-run elections.
3. Use of the military to seize and maintain power after a presidential election loss.
ADM Alvin Holsey has already bailed out of this shitshow.
It's also absurd to say that Kelly has tainted a maritime aid bill by stating that illegal orders should not be obeyed. Sometimes the obvious must be stated.
First, you need to clarify your understanding of international maritime law and the conveyance of contraband and criminal activities. These go-fast boats are vessels without nationality under International Law:
- Vessels without nationality: Vessels that fail to declare their registry or whose claim of nationality cannot be verified are considered "vessels without nationality" and are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. They may be boarded and searched by U.S. authorities.
Vessels often use tactics such as turning off their Automatic Identification System (AIS) or using false registration numbers to evade detection and attempt to evade and refuse hails, is defined suspicious activity that can trigger further investigation and interdiction efforts.
In this regard, the organizations running drugs have been declared terrorist organizations due to their trafficking of fentanyl and the deaths in the US from the illegal importation of these drugs. Given the nexus with China supplying the chemicals to make the fentanyl, refusing to stop, support of the cartels, and the potential of China using this as a grey zone type operation to weaken our nation makes it all a matter of national security concern.
On the high seas, these go-fast boats qualify as pirates and are treated us such under international law.
Now...whether you agree or not (it makes no difference)...an order to invade Greenland or Panama would NOT be an illegal order. It might be unwise, it might not be approved by Congress, or just Democrats...but it would not be an illegal order.
The other two fantasies you list are just your TDS talking and aren't worth addressing. ADM Holsey has kept quiet about why he left but he has conveyed his reasons to some other GOFOS. The stink is not what you allege.
You "need to clarify" your understanding of law in general.
Your main error is that you say that "organizations being declared terrorist organizations" means something in the context of this killing. There's no law, only an executive order. The executive order only authorizes freezing of assets and possible prosecution. You can't execute people by presidential fiat without a law of Congress. Remember the AUMFs by Congress against Al Qaeda?
These boats are also not pirates under international law. Piracy requires acts of violence against others on the high seas. Nor does international law authorize summary execution of pirates.
I was on a DDG which boarded and seized a trawler which was first confirmed to be stateless, and then we stopped it with the use of "disabling force" i.e. .50 cal to the stern. Actions were taken with permission of SECDEF and SECSTATE. The cargo was several tons of marijuana and maybe some cocaine. Quaint. The crew were two Spanish nationals in Lacoste polo shirts and four poor Colombians. The legal steps taken were meticulous, including the Coast Guard LEDET flying the USCG ensign on a Navy ship and putting a flashing blue light on the bridge wing as we were alongside the trawler. They ended up getting five years in prison I recall.
Your lack of understanding of law extends to saying an order to invade and seize Greenland or Panama would not be illegal even if not approved by Congress. In the case of Greenland, it would be illegal under the Treaty of Friendship with Denmark and the NATO Treaty. In the case of Panama, it would be illegal under the Panama Canal Treaty. In the case of both it would be illegal under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Treaties are US law.
We hung men after WW II for the crime of "waging aggressive war," which is what an invasion of Greenland or Panama would be.
Really? Where were you when Obama used drones to kill US Citizens in foreign countries with no charges, trial or conviction?
Be that as it may, yes the Commander in Chief can act and direct military forces to kill pirates on the high seas. This is a core function of the President's role as Commander in Chief. This power includes directing military action, and historically, the U.S. has used force against pirates, with a president issuing a standing order to use force against pirates holding an American hostage. While Congress has the power to declare war and make rules concerning captures, the President can direct the military to act, especially in situations like piracy where there is a clear and present danger to American interests or personnel. As precedent, this goes all the way back to Jefferson and his actions against the Barbary pirates.
By designating the gang as terrorists, the administration created a bridge from law enforcement to military action and from simple criminality to violent acts against the US: Narcotics smugglers are criminals, but terrorists are legitimate military targets. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea grants states authority to board and seize vessels engaged in piracy, the slave trade, or unauthorized broadcasting. Drug trafficking is addressed through separate conventions and bilateral treaties.
The United States and the President based their engagement in unilateral strikes on the fact that narcotics trafficking poses a threat to U.S. national security and U.S. citizens. Your "problem", if you will, is that your training and adherence to prior rules of engagement has conditioned you to think those are the ONLY acceptable actions and that they can't be changed by the NCA.
The Danish "Treaty of Friendship" doesn't address Greenland which has home rule. It can be most accurately described as a series of agreements with the United States that involve Greenland, as Denmark does not have a specific treaty of friendship with Greenland itself.
The most significant of these are the 1941 and 1951 defense agreements with the U.S., which granted the U.S. military access to Greenland in exchange for Greenland's defense. Another relevant agreement is the 1951 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the U.S. and Denmark, which aims to strengthen economic and cultural ties between the two countries, though it doesn't specifically grant any rights in Greenland.
As you may know, Greenland is a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, meaning it has significant autonomy but is not fully independent. Denmark retains control over foreign policy, defense, and monetary matters, while Greenland manages its own domestic affairs, natural resources, and judiciary. This relationship evolved from a colonial one, with Greenland gaining home rule in 1979 and a Self-Government Act in 2009 that further increased its authority.
The most relevant of these agreements is the Greenland Defense Agreement of 1951 which replaced the 1941 treaty and normalized the U.S. military presence in Greenland, which became a member of NATO. It granted extensive rights to the U.S. to maintain bases and establish new ones as needed, emphasizing joint responsibility for Greenland's defense with Denmark. So, while Greenland is a member of NATO, within NATO we are responsible for its defense and can go in and establish new bases. One would hope this would never be necessary without the cooperation of Greenland, but their flirtations with Chinese interests - and resistance to ours - may well make it necessary. Friends are as friends act.
As to the Panama Canal, and without addressing historical prerogatives, under the 1977 Neutrality Treaty, the U.S. retains a permanent right to defend the canal's neutrality and ensure it remains open, secure, and accessible. Both Panama and the US have the responsibility to defend this status in equal measure. However, if Panama attempted to compromise this status or opposed us when we decided to act, then you would have a situation where Panamanian governance could also come into question. There was a lot of wailing about removing Noriega, but it also happened.
Al Awlaki was a self-described member of the Al Qaeda command structure and a conspirator in attacks against the US. There was an AUMF against Al Qaeda passed by Congress. His status as a US citizen gave him no exemption for his military activities overseas which were the object of the AUMF.
He was as liable to be bombed as an American member of the George Washington Legion of the SS in WW II would have been.
Yeah, but you don't list the other US citizens - Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and Jude Kenan Mohammad. These three individuals were killed in separate strikes and were not the intended targets. At the time of his death, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was 16 years old.
Samir Khan and Jude Kenan Mohammed were members of Al Qaeda. Again, you don't get to travel overseas and make war against the USA in a declared war and then expect due process,
Sad about the kid (and his sister who was killed in a raid by the SEALS). Father put them in the wrong place.
I believe there is testimony by JAG Lindsey Graham in a Senate hearing discussing when it would be appropriate for military tribunals. You might want to look into that.
Did Arkansas want the National Guard (or the 101 Airborne) when Eisenhower sent them in?
I'd argue organized resistance and assault on federal officers performing immigration enforcement duties is not a local criminal issue.
Outside of that, it will need to go through the courts but in light of historical civil rights issues they could probably make a case for protecting the civil rights of law-abiding citizens by cleaning up the murderers and violent felons that local DA's keep releasing onto the streets, but clearly a different argument that federal immigration enforcement.
Bear in mind, I'd like a much less powerful federal government, no FBI, no ATF, none of a dozen other agencies, and almost no federal money going to states or localities at all, but I lost that argument decades ago.
Until demoncrats ship in hundreds of thousands of people hostile to your shiny happy values and turn Utah into a hellscape like so many other places. Must be nice not to have decapitated gang victims turn up in neighboring forests in your little nirvana, but Trump is trying to clean up years of unenforced law and foreign invasion.
A local government that prevents federal LE from carrying out their duties is in rebellion. We are not talking about graffiti.
It's mind boggling to believe that most senior officers would need something like this to seek the advice of their JAG if a questionable order arises.
In the meantime, it was questionable and is now in the public domain.
"....but entering a state against the governor’s wishes could be different."
Protecting Federal property when the governor is allowing violence? 'fraid not. He has authority to enforce federal law and protect federal property.
On the streets like in D.C.? You might find my answer too libertarian and brutal for your liking. Let's suffice to say give the electorate what they voted for and plenty of it.
Well said! Gunner
These actions are pure provocation, akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. I view these actions as shameful and a direct violation of the oath taken by the former service members.
The bigger threat is the insane overreaction by the administration.
So, we have a bifurcated national polity. A bifurcated comment section on this Substack. And, as a lifelong Catholic, a bifurcated Catholicism. But we can all discuss calmly without drawing blood...can't we?
What should the response be to a deliberate act to mislead and destabilize our military members, weaken our forces, and plant the seeds of mutiny, in the face of absolutely no illegal orders?
The Chinese couldn't have paid for more effective disruption of our security.
It should have been ignored. Trump made the story 10x bigger with his insane overreaction.
Nope. He's the CINC. He didn't "overreact"; didn't mention these nitwits by name, didn't threaten. He merely pointed out that sedition may be punishable by death.
Nope. The political stunt should never have happened.
Not at all. This is the same administration that found people to pay the military when Sen. Kelly and his fellow democraps voted to not pay the military for 42 days. A good video reminding people what is at stake when you second guess your chain of command: https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1991777904053583982?s=20
Trump held the military and SNAP recipients hostage. He had the ability to redirect funds to keep the military and SNAP benefits paid but chose to play hardball with their lives to get a political victory, though it may actually turn out to be a defeat judging from the off year elections and 2026 projections.
I'll file this one where it belongs. Thanks for playing.
So a continuing resolution at Biden era spending wasn’t enough for you?
The Democrats tried to force an additional $1.5 trillion dollars in Obamacare subsidies. The subsidies were supposed to temporary per covid. But once again it’s demanded to effectively make them permanent.
Rather than expect Americans be responsible and figure it out for themselves, the savior which is the Democrats aren’t the problem but the President is. From a spending bill that occurred during the Biden administration.
Yeah - don’t accuse anyone of not thinking here.
The Admins reaction should have been stronger but the comments from the 6 were crafted in legal weaselize, just enough
No, they didn't. They thought they were being cute, but the very act of what they combined and conspired to do and DID do in the video violates 18 USC 2387. Their weasel words about illegal orders don't affect that one whit because the rest of it intends to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States.
Aha...the old blame the victim and not the perp mentality.
Mark Kelly is an incredible disappointment.
He has done absolutely nothing for his alma mater. Anyone, who has visited Kings Point recently will see a college literally falling apart.
This latest stunt would be laughable if it came from a nutcase like Jasmine Crockett. It is despicable coming from a Navy captain and NASA astronaut. Worse, Kelly is actually fundraising off this incident claiming Trump wants to hang him.
He might have a negative opinion of his alma mater. Many I know who went, do.
He was a graduation speaker at KP. Did you not know that?
Dunno how Trump feels, but right now a lot of people would be happy to put Kelly out the airlock without an EVA suit.
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
"I'm sorry, Mark; I'm afraid I can't do that. This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it."
https://youtu.be/5Iux161DZAA Video from YouTube
can't watch even watch it again. Absolutely disgusting on their part
Telling how what you focus on here isn't the administration flipping shit and insisting no order the president makes could possibly be illegal.
You’re missing the point Bob. Orders issued by the chain of command, from the President on down, and superior officers are presumed to be legal, unless they CLEARLY violate the:
1. Constitution
2. U.S. Law
3. UCMJ
4. Laws of Warfare
5. Geneva Convention
6. Rules of Engagement
These traitors have now put members of the military in the untenable position of questioning the legitimacy of not the President but the 6 elements above.
For that they should be stood up against the nearest brick wall, after a military tribunal of course.
In another context, that of the Comey "indictment," a federal judge just said he had to abandon the "presumption of regularity" once applied to the statements and actions of the Department of Justice. That is because the DOJ apparently has perpetrated a fraud upon the court in presenting that indictment. It's a habit of this administration, not complying with laws and norms.
How can orders be "presumed to be legal" according to your listing, when the president has said he doesn't know if he's supposed to uphold the Constitution, is in court for breaking US laws, and you have a Secretary of Defense who made his career on denigrating and denying the Law of Warfare, the Geneva Conventions, and Rules of Engagement and agitating for those who broke the UCMJ be pardoned? Not to mention that his self-styling as "Secretary of War" is contrary to US law?
Traitors? You tipped your hand. If they had used "CLEARLY" would you have been any happier? Line them up against the wall after a show trial. Sounds like a Loyalist in defense of the King responding to Thomas Paine.
I'm sure they would all regret that they have but one life to give for their beloved country.
One of the 6 Democrats, Rep. Jason Crow joined the Army after college and served in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and in the 75th Ranger Regiment, deploying to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
And he more than ever should have known better.
Even if you grant that he should have known better, it does not logically follow that he should be hanged. Simply restating the law that Service members are only obligated to follow lawful orders under the UCMJ is a hard stretch to reach sedition or even a violation under Article 88 that prohibits using "contemptuous words" against a high government official.
And that means what? Benedict Arnold was a general and still sold our country out.
All about him being a Democrat being investigated by a passed over drunk who couldn't cut it in the field. Simply reading the law out loud is not a crime and leaves intent to be supplied by your own black heart. Don't pretend that your response is not based on partisan hatred that is so prevalent on this site. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Hmmmm, this comment didn't age well
Ashamed to say I knew the Senator briefly when he was a JO. I was the deputy strike group leader he was assigned to on the Midway. He was a nugget (FNG) A-6 pilot. Very quiet, nothing of value to add to any targeting discussions for strikes. (Sort of like his Senatorial career).
Like others before him, he traded his fame as an astronaut for political office. Together with his spouse Gabby Giffords they've done more damage to the 2A than any other political team in US history.
Disappointing guy, as this commercial proves...as CDR Sal said, using his former and current positions to influence someone else to go down in flames while he safely stays the course in less dangerous waters.
Well said Jim. I am ashamed that I know him as well. His new name is Mr. Jane Fonda. Let's spread his new callsign.
I respectfully disagree. Sen/CAPT Kelly is one of the most level headed, serious professionals I know, as is his brother who I served with. If he is lending his name to this action, he sees dangerous shoals ahead and understands the predicament the military is now in with politicalization of its missions. He always presents himself as the most informed and non-performative of his colleagues in the Senate and at hearings. I trust his judgement magnitudes higher than some of the others who are voicing opinions one way or another. If it’s a choice between him and the SecDefs judgement (or track record), there is no choice. I’d go Kelly’s way sight unseen.
He's a crass ...and obviously obtuse... politician.
And don't even start with "but he's a Naval Aviator" canard.
But I suppose you too are blinded by TDS and Beltway Snobbery..
The Secretary of War was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Kelly was not.
Please cite the illegal order the Senator was referencing.
Can't be done. Because there are NONE
I have been asking this for the past few days to my liberal friends on FB. Silence.
Sen Kelly's first use of political capital was to back an assault weapons bill. At the time of that backing he had an AR-15 rifle on order with Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson Arizona. That rifle would have been banned by the bill.
This is just the latest dishonorable stunt he's pulled. In my opinion, he's less than a man.
"He always presents himself as the most informed and non-performative of his colleagues in the Senate and at hearings." You gave it away. "He always presents himself..." IOW it's an act. The non-performativeness is itself a performance. "See how serious I am!" He's clearly got you fooled. Look at his actual record of legislative accomplishments, though. Pretty thin gruel.
Agree. An embarassment. Ask his ex.
Absolutely disagree.
This was permission for the military to ignore the orders of the President if it comes to it…a coup. It’s also a warning to those who would follow orders that they may someday be labeled “illegal” and you will be held accountable. If you were writing a novel or screenplay this would be in the first act of a “7 Days in May” scenario. It’s reckless, irresponsible and runs right up to the line of seditious with a wink and a smirk.
And the icing on the cake is putting the SHIPS for America Act in the crosshairs…moronic.
That would happen regardless. This administration’s sea blindness is the same as the others ir worse. Financial opportunity is the only reason they pay any attemtion to it.
No. To prevent a coup. To prevent a deranged Trump from trying to loose American forces on the American public. WTF is wrong with you people?
We will have regime change in Venezuela. It’s probably a good thing. But Americans will die.
No, you see as a member of the military your are required to carry out all legal orders. It doesn’t matter if you like them, or agree with them, you carry them out. You are also constantly briefed on what constitutes a legal order. There is no reason to tell military members that, they already know. A coup would be the military seizing power from the executive or assisting in seizing power, not lawful orders being carried out.
Directing it at Trump to “remind” him that illegal orders won’t fly would still be silly but not as cynical as inviting servicemembers to catch a court martial for unspecified reasons.
You do realize Americans have been dying for decades due to the drug trade coming in from Venezuela.
I’d rather he started with Mexico but I suspect he understands the variables with Mexico versus Venezuela and maybe the example of V changes the dynamics in Mexico
Kelley and crew, hereafter known as the Seditious Six, deserve the scorn their action has earned. They all swore an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution; that includes the authority of the President and the separation of powers. How inconvenient for them that the President is using legal actions to undo the illegal actions taken by the Democrat Party in an effort to circumvent the Constitution and preserve Democrat power. Further, their action gives cause to the weak-minded of their progressive persuasion to attempt to assassinate the President or other prominent government officials.
All six should be impeached for sedition.
Recall them to active duty and try them for sedition.
Honestly, I’d settle for an admin board that dragged him through a knothole and made the process the punishment. And ruin any chance of him being reelected.
Can’t count on the electorate. Look at NYC.
What is it called when you want to slap somebody so hard it makes your eye twitch?
I believe that is called being a A-10 pilot.
Does your eye go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPT! when it twitches?
Conduct unbecoming, bringing discredit to the service, the nation and border line seditious.
I won't disparage Mark Kelly's military career because it's beyond reproach but it's almost to the point of nauseating when he constantly falls back on his past successes to further his political aspirations and excuse his delusions of grandeur.
It's to the point where I wonder if Captain Mark Kelly will wonder who stole the frozen strawberries.
Sorry it only takes one OOPS! to undo 200 Attaboys!
From hero to zero in the blink of an eye.
"Servicemembers have a duty to disobey illegal orders," is true and obvious and not disputed by any serious person. (I started to say "by anyone" and realized that wouldn't work.)
The frantic overreaction by the administration and its supporters to these legislators saying this true thing is, charitably, very strange.
If, if they had cited a specific illegal order at the time, I would be far more open minded about this.
The act of sedition requires a collective action with the specific intent to subvert civil authority.
They planted doubt and mistrust in the Chain of Command. That is a deliberate decision to subvert civil authority.
Failure to cite a single example of an illegal order at the time of their statement takes it from a statement of the regulation to sedition.
This is very interesting, which is to say seemingly brand-new, legal analysis. Could you tell me where this principle exists in the statues, regs, Code, or Constitution?
Because it seems to me that 1) the executive doesn't have the power to constrain legislators' rights to state the law, 2) a statement of the principle ("illegal orders are illegal and SMs are not automatons") is much more powerful than some hypothetical about an illegal future order.
It seems extremely obvious that this tactic -- "You can't say SMs can disobey illegal orders without specifying what order you're thinking of!" -- is a crude effort to box in critics and pretend that any order other than that specified in the proposed statement *is* legal. That would be a very foolish, and very dangerous, and totally unnecessary, concession for critics of the administration (or, to put another way, defenders of the Constitution and the rule of law) to make.
Had they phrased it differently, I might even have a different opinion. Too bad they didn't. Words have meanings and actions have consequences.
So tell me, when some serviceman acts on the speech by your friend from Arizona will you defend him? We all know that the kid will be hung (figuratively) while those who incited the action will feel no repercussion from their poorly crafted script.
There are a lot of comments on this post about imaginary prosecutions, and they're all pretty dumb, but this might be the worst. If a servicemember disobey an illegal order, of course I'll defend him. If a servicemember disobeys a lawful order, of course I won't.
What I won't do is pretend that having leadership constantly denigrating the rule of law, and regularly issuing orders that at least skirt unlawfulness, is a good thing. I won't pretend that the unfit man leading the Pentagon, and the equally unfit man leading the country, are good for our Nation or our Constitution or the Services. (And I won't be distracted by the unfitness of their predecessors. Two things can be bad at the same time, and Lloyd Austin's incompetence doesn't excuse Hegseth's corruption (both moral and legal).
Let's boil down to this.
Their little comments were no different than North Korean diatribes coaxing servicemen to defect across the 38th Parallel.
Well, one difference that springs to mind is that "You should desert to North Korea" is bad advice not in a servicemember's interest, and "remember no one is above the law" is the opposite of that. (Still remains quite strange that saying this is making people so upset!)
Another relevant difference is that North Korea is an enemy of the United States and Democratic congressmen are not, no matter how desperately the president and his supporters stamp their feet and yell "off with their heads."
Oh come on. It’s a political stunt.
Just another D/leftist attempt to undermine the President.
The Navy officers I know over the years would simply say Whisky Tango Foxtrot less charitable than I wrote.
Once you’re no longer active duty you keep your mouth shut and let the current officers do their jobs.
They accomplished nothing per the active duty. They know their jobs.
All democrats? Partisan hacks and stunt.
I mean ... fine? Of course it's a political stunt? The number of statements by members of Congress that aren't about politics is pretty small.
But here's the thing: As political stunts go, publicly restating the law of the land is a bit more palatable than issuing a press release saying sitting Congressmen should be executed for same.
Would it kill Trump and his supporters to once, just once, not fly into a frothing rage every time someone disagrees with them?
Sorry, Counselor, but they specifically combined and conspired to violate 18 US Code 2387. This has nothing to do with lawyering your way around "illegal orders". The tone and content and who they directed the message to violates the statute. Legal or illegal orders and "just stating the law" doesn't enter into it because their intent in tone and construct was to interfere with the military and sow discord with the result of causing military members to disobey their duty, be insubordinate, or mutiny.
Why can I say that? Because look at what they have wrought. The former military personnel on this site do not differ in character or intellect from current military personnel...and the effect is the same on current members of the military.
I'm sure you're a good person and I'm prepared to believe you mean well, but unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about and that's impossible to overlook.
Really? Talk to Ruben Gallego about the "script"...of course they had one to coordinate the message. Coordination. Combining to violate the law.
They'll probably charge Kelly under UCMJ because they control that. Evidence will be uncovered, arguments made. Then the other 5 may well receive indictments from DOJ.
But what can't happen is to let them continue this way...either with subversion and sedition or their use of the courts and legal community in a coordinated campaign of lawfare. A campaign that far too many of you "fair minded legal scholars" have no problem with...as long as the system is perverted to go after Trump or frustrate policy you don't like.
It has to end. And that means taking on these types of issues. Mark my words and we'll talk later.
I'd also add, just to make a point, that there many restrictions on free speech. Unprotected speech includes:
- Incitement to imminent lawless action: Speech that is intended to and is likely to provoke immediate illegal acts is not protected. This would be most relevant to the video from the Dems since there is also a statute on the books prohibiting it.
- True threats: Statements that express a serious intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group.
- Defamation: False statements of fact that harm someone's reputation.
- Obscenity and child pornography: These are not protected by the First Amendment.
- Fighting words: Speech that is likely to provoke a violent reaction from the person it is directed at.
- Commercial speech: While protected to some extent, false or misleading advertising can be prohibited.
Other restrictions and limitations include restrictions on government employees and military. The speech of government employees, prisoners, and members of the military can be restricted in certain contexts...and this is one of them.
Listen, I'm glad you're enjoying ChatGPT but it's no substitute for having a clue. This hasn't been a very productive or interesting conversation and it's getting less so, so I'm out.
Colin,
Stand up straight, and more importantly, wise up.
The Bundeswehr teaches its members a concept they call "Innere Führung" - a concept that troops are also citizens and maintain moral responsibility for their actions and loyalty to the Constitution.
After My Lai, it's also been a component of US military training that illegal orders must be refused.
Aside from the highly questionable killing of minor criminals in the Caribbean serving as pretext for what looks to be a regime-change operation never voted for by Congress, there are several potential illegal orders which have been signaled by the Trump regime:
1. The invasion of Greenland, or the Canal Zone for that matter.
2. Military interference with Tenth Amendment state sovereignty and state-run elections.
3. Use of the military to seize and maintain power after a presidential election loss.
ADM Alvin Holsey has already bailed out of this shitshow.
It's also absurd to say that Kelly has tainted a maritime aid bill by stating that illegal orders should not be obeyed. Sometimes the obvious must be stated.
1. What?
2. Huh?
3. How?
First, you need to clarify your understanding of international maritime law and the conveyance of contraband and criminal activities. These go-fast boats are vessels without nationality under International Law:
- Vessels without nationality: Vessels that fail to declare their registry or whose claim of nationality cannot be verified are considered "vessels without nationality" and are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. They may be boarded and searched by U.S. authorities.
Vessels often use tactics such as turning off their Automatic Identification System (AIS) or using false registration numbers to evade detection and attempt to evade and refuse hails, is defined suspicious activity that can trigger further investigation and interdiction efforts.
In this regard, the organizations running drugs have been declared terrorist organizations due to their trafficking of fentanyl and the deaths in the US from the illegal importation of these drugs. Given the nexus with China supplying the chemicals to make the fentanyl, refusing to stop, support of the cartels, and the potential of China using this as a grey zone type operation to weaken our nation makes it all a matter of national security concern.
On the high seas, these go-fast boats qualify as pirates and are treated us such under international law.
Now...whether you agree or not (it makes no difference)...an order to invade Greenland or Panama would NOT be an illegal order. It might be unwise, it might not be approved by Congress, or just Democrats...but it would not be an illegal order.
The other two fantasies you list are just your TDS talking and aren't worth addressing. ADM Holsey has kept quiet about why he left but he has conveyed his reasons to some other GOFOS. The stink is not what you allege.
You "need to clarify" your understanding of law in general.
Your main error is that you say that "organizations being declared terrorist organizations" means something in the context of this killing. There's no law, only an executive order. The executive order only authorizes freezing of assets and possible prosecution. You can't execute people by presidential fiat without a law of Congress. Remember the AUMFs by Congress against Al Qaeda?
These boats are also not pirates under international law. Piracy requires acts of violence against others on the high seas. Nor does international law authorize summary execution of pirates.
I was on a DDG which boarded and seized a trawler which was first confirmed to be stateless, and then we stopped it with the use of "disabling force" i.e. .50 cal to the stern. Actions were taken with permission of SECDEF and SECSTATE. The cargo was several tons of marijuana and maybe some cocaine. Quaint. The crew were two Spanish nationals in Lacoste polo shirts and four poor Colombians. The legal steps taken were meticulous, including the Coast Guard LEDET flying the USCG ensign on a Navy ship and putting a flashing blue light on the bridge wing as we were alongside the trawler. They ended up getting five years in prison I recall.
Your lack of understanding of law extends to saying an order to invade and seize Greenland or Panama would not be illegal even if not approved by Congress. In the case of Greenland, it would be illegal under the Treaty of Friendship with Denmark and the NATO Treaty. In the case of Panama, it would be illegal under the Panama Canal Treaty. In the case of both it would be illegal under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Treaties are US law.
We hung men after WW II for the crime of "waging aggressive war," which is what an invasion of Greenland or Panama would be.
Really? Where were you when Obama used drones to kill US Citizens in foreign countries with no charges, trial or conviction?
Be that as it may, yes the Commander in Chief can act and direct military forces to kill pirates on the high seas. This is a core function of the President's role as Commander in Chief. This power includes directing military action, and historically, the U.S. has used force against pirates, with a president issuing a standing order to use force against pirates holding an American hostage. While Congress has the power to declare war and make rules concerning captures, the President can direct the military to act, especially in situations like piracy where there is a clear and present danger to American interests or personnel. As precedent, this goes all the way back to Jefferson and his actions against the Barbary pirates.
By designating the gang as terrorists, the administration created a bridge from law enforcement to military action and from simple criminality to violent acts against the US: Narcotics smugglers are criminals, but terrorists are legitimate military targets. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea grants states authority to board and seize vessels engaged in piracy, the slave trade, or unauthorized broadcasting. Drug trafficking is addressed through separate conventions and bilateral treaties.
The United States and the President based their engagement in unilateral strikes on the fact that narcotics trafficking poses a threat to U.S. national security and U.S. citizens. Your "problem", if you will, is that your training and adherence to prior rules of engagement has conditioned you to think those are the ONLY acceptable actions and that they can't be changed by the NCA.
The Danish "Treaty of Friendship" doesn't address Greenland which has home rule. It can be most accurately described as a series of agreements with the United States that involve Greenland, as Denmark does not have a specific treaty of friendship with Greenland itself.
The most significant of these are the 1941 and 1951 defense agreements with the U.S., which granted the U.S. military access to Greenland in exchange for Greenland's defense. Another relevant agreement is the 1951 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the U.S. and Denmark, which aims to strengthen economic and cultural ties between the two countries, though it doesn't specifically grant any rights in Greenland.
As you may know, Greenland is a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, meaning it has significant autonomy but is not fully independent. Denmark retains control over foreign policy, defense, and monetary matters, while Greenland manages its own domestic affairs, natural resources, and judiciary. This relationship evolved from a colonial one, with Greenland gaining home rule in 1979 and a Self-Government Act in 2009 that further increased its authority.
The most relevant of these agreements is the Greenland Defense Agreement of 1951 which replaced the 1941 treaty and normalized the U.S. military presence in Greenland, which became a member of NATO. It granted extensive rights to the U.S. to maintain bases and establish new ones as needed, emphasizing joint responsibility for Greenland's defense with Denmark. So, while Greenland is a member of NATO, within NATO we are responsible for its defense and can go in and establish new bases. One would hope this would never be necessary without the cooperation of Greenland, but their flirtations with Chinese interests - and resistance to ours - may well make it necessary. Friends are as friends act.
As to the Panama Canal, and without addressing historical prerogatives, under the 1977 Neutrality Treaty, the U.S. retains a permanent right to defend the canal's neutrality and ensure it remains open, secure, and accessible. Both Panama and the US have the responsibility to defend this status in equal measure. However, if Panama attempted to compromise this status or opposed us when we decided to act, then you would have a situation where Panamanian governance could also come into question. There was a lot of wailing about removing Noriega, but it also happened.
Al Awlaki was a self-described member of the Al Qaeda command structure and a conspirator in attacks against the US. There was an AUMF against Al Qaeda passed by Congress. His status as a US citizen gave him no exemption for his military activities overseas which were the object of the AUMF.
He was as liable to be bombed as an American member of the George Washington Legion of the SS in WW II would have been.
The rest of your post is confusing drivel.
Yeah, but you don't list the other US citizens - Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and Jude Kenan Mohammad. These three individuals were killed in separate strikes and were not the intended targets. At the time of his death, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was 16 years old.
Good riddance all!
Samir Khan and Jude Kenan Mohammed were members of Al Qaeda. Again, you don't get to travel overseas and make war against the USA in a declared war and then expect due process,
Sad about the kid (and his sister who was killed in a raid by the SEALS). Father put them in the wrong place.
> ten subscribers
> no posts
> recent account
I wonder who could be behind this post?
If you're talking about me, you're off course. As people will tell you, good or ill, I've been commented here for a long, long time.
No, Trust. Referring to Thomas. Follow the reply lines. They can be confusing visually.
Well said.
"There are several potential illegal orders which have been signaled by the Trump regime"
Can you please cite the illegal orders that have been issued by the Trump Administration?
Please cite them in chronological order by DTG. (You do know what a DTG is, right?)
These killings of small boat crews are illegal, for reasons I explain above.
Anyways, the Democratic members of Congress would like to prevent even more egregious illegal actions like invading Greenland. Good for them.
If they were illegal they would have cited them. The rest is claptrap until the order has been issued.
The cartels were designated as terrorist organizations. The rules changed.
When did we invade Greenland? I just have missed that one.
I do know my son visited. Does that count?
Well I’ve often heard that European consider American tourists to be invaders.
1. How the heck did I miss the invasion of Greenland? I thought I already spend too much time online.
2. "But you can totally imagine if it happened, right?"
3. hahahahaha roflmao
Your comment is valid if you believe Trump is just spouting chaotic bullshit. But he's got 3+ years left to implement what he said.
Like just yesterday he was posting he wanted military tribunals for these members of Congress and the "deep state."
I believe there is testimony by JAG Lindsey Graham in a Senate hearing discussing when it would be appropriate for military tribunals. You might want to look into that.
Ya I don't need to read it. I read the Constitution, specifically the Sixth Amendment.
> Ten subscribers
> No posts
> Endless comments in this thread pushing a particularly honed narrative
I see you.
Do 'ya? Then you haven't been paying attention for the last several years on here.
Trust, please master the visual tracing of reply lines. It's not the clearest feature of the SS platform. I'm replying to Thomas, not you.
I tried...the lines don't always sync well. Apologies.
Do you see me hiding under your bed?
What one says when they have factual or legal argument . . . against my "honed narrative." 😄
> Ten subscribers
> No posts
> Endless comments in this thread pushing a particularly honed narrative
> tag teaming with "Albert Greco," new account, no posts, three subscribers, seven reads including Newsom, Eric Swalwell, and Andrew Weissmann
Pathetic. At least TRY.
> 10 subscribers
> no posts
> recent account
Yeah, I'm gonna bet you're operating in service to...something other than veracity and honor.
A provocation. Please spell out what orders are illegal. Otherwise stfu