It's been in the news for about a week now, the original clip is in the OP post. Just google or youtube search Seditious Six (or 6) for the current plotline and news stories. Here's a clip for instance.
Unlawful orders
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's been in the news for about a week now, the original clip is in the OP post. Just google or youtube search Seditious Six (or 6) for the current plotline and news stories. Here's a clip for instance.
It's the job of Congress to inform the Military of the laws regarding legal or illegal orders. The top JAG for Southern Command,Marine Col. Paul Meagher informed them that firing on the civilian vessels without provocation was a violation of both international and US law. The advice was disregarded and was approved then higher up in command. Afterwards Admiral Alvin Holsey Commander of Southern Command also raised the point of legal/illegal orders concerning firing on these vessels. In the video you posted they intentionally state "illegal orders" because their are Colonel's and Admirals who are bringing up the legality of orders they are being ask to carry out.
Sounds like he should be investigated for sedition and treason too. They are not civillian vessels, they are vessels in the commision of a narco-terrorism, additionally if they are Venezuelan or at all in any way whatsoever affiliated with Nicholas Maduro the infamous dictator with a bounty on his head, they're definitely fair game since they are in the commission from a known enemy State actor. They should rather devote their efforts to removing Maduro from office as soon as possible. It is not acceptable to take thhe side of the foreign enemy above all enemies. Furthermore it is still breaking the chain of command too. Best deal could be offered to them is to give them a new assignment and reprimand the soldiers here, but for the Seditious Six, yea they're still n the hot seat since this would prove they brainwashed these officers.
If you are talking about the drug smuggling boats, they are not civilian vessels. The drug smugglers have been classified as terrorists. It is not an unlawful order, on the contrary they are defending the US as 100k Americans have been killed in a single year by these drugs. They have also seized billions of dollars worth of cash and drugs from these criminal organizations, some of which is used to buy off politicians, police and judges. This is why they are crying about putting a stop to this because the money that keeps them in power is being cut off. In fact the 16 boats that have been stopped and the one submarine probably total $1 billion in drugs alone, not even counting everything that has been confiscated in the US.
This is just like the Lord cursing the fig tree and it dries up from the roots and withers. This is what is happening.
If you cut the connection from the drug lab to the US then the entire operation in the US will wither and die just as the drug lab in Venezuela will also die.
What these congressmen and women did was akin to crying fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. You are not protected from prosecution by the "freedom of speech", you can still be held accountable for speech that is designed to cause harm.
Yes and no. Functionally yes, but USA will try to stay relatively normative to international law. Indeed too many times the left tries to play up international law as a weapon against the right but yea it doesn't work that way because ultimately American law supersedes international law as far as America is concerned. Still America has greatly contributed to international law and order, so it's more like guidelines than hard rules. It's smart if you recognize it as somewhat a supporting proof rather than the central claim, ideally actually like squig cites, iit does help their argument in the sense that they don't have maybe seditious intent (the officers in the post) hence why simply reassigning them and more brutally punishing the ringleaders, the Seditious Six (whom definitely know better).
Actually in the Military you can obey the order,disobey the order or tender you resignation which is the honorable approach but there is no fourth option. Admiral Holsey did tender his resignation of Southern Command which was the ingenious approach because it also means that the responsibility of those orders then shifts uphill to Hegseth and then Trump if they are in the end found to be illegal. https://www.facebook.com/Southcom/p...-commander-adm-alvin-holsey/1278505450981832/
violating a treaty is the same as violating a law. A treaty is legally binding.
One of the first things Pete Hegseth did was fire the JAG lawyers. These are the ones who advise the military commanders about what's lawful and what isn't. One of the first things the Donald did was fire 17 inspectors general. What Donald and Hegseth did right out of the gate was get rid of those who could hold them accountable. If they hadn't done that, maybe those six senators wouldn't have felt the need to do what they did. If anyone wants to know why people are worried about what unlawful orders they might give, it's because they're giving us good reason to.
Yea that's what I mean by reshuffling, once in a gang, you're in for life. Good find too btw, you do often find good stuff Squig especially for the Southern command, lol it's snowing up North here, have a Happy Thanksgiving, praise Jesus.
Those boats may have had drugs on them but they were blown up and so nobody knows what they were carrying. If ask we could not even prove their destination was the US they may have been headed for multiple islands scattered throughout the Caribbean and under the authority of other nations. One could even argue they were carrying suitcase nuc's and only the Pentagon had that information at the time of their sinking. No one knows though because their at the bottom of the Caribbean.
That's why we like Hegseth, they had formed a clique of disproportionate power that threatened the nation. Hegseth-JD Vance-Marco Rubio Triumvirate of Millennial LLeadership is the future, hence our previous excitement over them in other topics. Unfortunately you are poisoned against them because the media you are most partial too is controlled by the old guard who are getting throw out. The thing is though that that they're on their way out anyways and they just can't handle it cause they're Boomers, like even the leftwing is going to undergo internal change, this is just the way of history and time itself.
They were warned not to be there. USA for all its criticisms of it, they do usually give a warning first or an ultimatum, never a sucker punch. Those vessels were certainly enemy vessels, they knew not to be there and they ignored America's resolve, their blood is on their own heads.
Yes, that is what happens in war. Exactly.
As for no one knows, that is a really big stretch. What intelligence did the military have? International waters are 12 miles from land, these are not fishing boats, they have 600 HP of outboard motors, no fishing poles, and they are going full blast across the water and we can see the boat is filled with containers and two or three people.
Needs Congressional declaration, that power does not belong to POTUS. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753
The United States did not formally declare war on terrorism through an official congressional declaration, but rather initiated a global military campaign called the "War on Terror" following the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Key Details
- Presidential Declaration: Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush announced a "war on terror" as a commitment to eradicate global terrorism. In his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, he stated the campaign "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated".
- Authorization of Force: Instead of a formal declaration of war (which requires Congress under the Constitution), Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Terrorists on September 14, 2001. This resolution authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those responsible for the attacks and those who harbored them. The AUMF has been the legal basis for counter-terrorism operations in over 22 countries since.
- Nature of the Conflict: The "war on terror" is generally considered a metaphor for a global counterterrorism campaign rather than a traditional war against a specific nation-state. It involved large-scale military interventions (like in Afghanistan and Iraq), intelligence operations, financial sanctions, and domestic security measures.
- Current Status: The term "war on terror" fell out of official use during the Obama administration, which favored more focused counterterrorism operations. While major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have ended, targeted counterterrorism operations, such as drone strikes and assistance to allies, continue in various regions. A Global War on Terrorism Service Medal is still issued by the U.S. Armed Forces.