U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Trump declares airspace over Venezuela closed

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 728
  • Views: 20K
  • Politics 
fwiw, Rand Paul questioned the legality of these strikes on September 3rd. (As did many on this board, including those with relevant military and legal experience).
 
ChileG said:
fwiw, Rand Paul questioned the legality of these strikes on September 3rd. (As did many on this board, including those with relevant military and legal experience).
Click to expand...
Well sure, but neither Rand nor anyone on this board is a JUDICIAL/LEGAL BODY, WHICH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THAT OUR TROOPS ARE BREAKING LAWS!!!!

So all of us, and Rand in particular, need to shut up the fuck up and stop raising the temperature.
 
October 1, 1946. After ten months of trial in Nuremberg, guilty verdicts were returned against 21 Nazi officials. These were the first verdicts returned against perpetrators of the largest genocide in the history of mankind.

September 30, 1946. The last day people needed to keep their goddamn mouths shut about the Holocaust to avoid raising the temperature.
 
lawtig02 said:
Well sure, but neither Rand nor anyone on this board is a JUDICIAL/LEGAL BODY, WHICH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THAT OUR TROOPS ARE BREAKING LAWS!!!!

So all of us, and Rand in particular, need to shut up the fuck up and stop raising the temperature.
Click to expand...
Or just recognize the difference between asking legitimate questions and implying that military personnel are already committing war crimes and should stop following orders.

Stevie Wonder can see the difference in those two situations.
 
ZenMode said:
Or just recognize the difference between asking legitimate questions and implying that military personnel are already committing war crimes and should stop following orders.

Stevie Wonder can see the difference in those two situations.
Click to expand...
Good point. I fixed the congressional Dems' statement to ask a legitimate question --

"Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. Do you think, as countless legal experts and former JAGs have opined, that some of the orders you're getting right now might be just a wee bit illegal? If so, good news! No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. Know that we have your back. Don't give up the ship!"

All good now! The temperature has been lowered!
 
ZZLPHeels said:
@ZenMode , what do you think happens to the political temperature when the sitting President of the United States attempts to illegally overthrow the government, and then pardons every single person who committed violence on his behalf? Do you think a person who did this would have any qualms about attempting to do so again, and potentially using the military the next time?
Click to expand...
 
ZenMode said:
Or just recognize the difference between asking legitimate questions and implying that military personnel are already committing war crimes and should stop following orders.

Stevie Wonder can see the difference in those two situations.
Click to expand...
Rand wasn’t just asking questions.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
@ZenMode , what do you think happens to the political temperature when the sitting President of the United States attempts to illegally overthrow the government, and then pardons every single person who committed violence on his behalf? Do you think a person who did this would have any qualms about attempting to do so again, and potentially using the military the next time?
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb and sit it ALSO raises the policitcal temperature, creates a more dangerous environment and results in things like assassination attempts.

I still have no idea what Trump has to do with Congress speaking to the military.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and sit it ALSO raises the policitcal temperature, creates a more dangerous environment and results in things like assassination attempts.

I still have no idea what Trump has to do with Congress speaking to the military.
Click to expand...
You don't know what Trump has to do with all of this?
 


A) The admin confirms the second strike
B) The admin states narco terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting "in accordance with the laws of war"
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
A) The admin confirms the second strike
B) The admin states narco terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting "in accordance with the laws of war"
Click to expand...
Reminder of some laws of war:

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;​
​
(b) taking of hostages;​
​
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;​
​
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.​

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

[Zen, to avoid raising the temperature, I'll refrain from suggesting the natural conclusion that arises from applying the administration's confirmed facts to the administration's confirmed applicable law]
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Or just recognize the difference between asking legitimate questions and implying that military personnel are already committing war crimes and should stop following orders.

Stevie Wonder can see the difference in those two situations.
Click to expand...
Rand did not merely imply we were committing crimes. He flat out said so in no uncertain terms.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
You don't know what Trump has to do with all of this?
Click to expand...
Yes, on the question of whether or not Congress telling the military to not follow rules and the potential real-life impact that could have, I don't see any way Trump is involved. I see two parties: Congressional Democrats and Military personnel.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Reminder of some laws of war:

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;​
​
(b) taking of hostages;​
​
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;​
​
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.​

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

[Zen, to avoid raising the temperature, I'll refrain from suggesting the natural conclusion that arises from applying the administration's confirmed facts to the administration's confirmed applicable law]
Click to expand...
And this, of course, supposes that we are engaged in a “legal” act of war, as indicated by a declaration thereof and appropriate congressional authorization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top