U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Trump threatens Colombia

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 397
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 


Trump Administration Authorizes Covert C.I.A. Action in Venezuela​

The development comes as the U.S. military is drawing up options for President Trump to consider, including possible strikes inside the country.

www.nytimes.com

Trump Administration Authorizes Covert C.I.A. Action in Venezuela

The development comes as the U.S. military is drawing up options for President Trump to consider, including possible strikes inside the country.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“… The new authority would allow the C.I.A. to carry out lethal operations in Venezuela and conduct a range of operations in the Caribbean.

The agency would be able to take covert action against Mr. Maduro or his government either unilaterally or in conjunction with a larger military operation. It is not known whether the C.I.A. is planning any operations in Venezuela or if the authorities are meant as a contingency….”

Agency Spying GIF by Team Kennedy
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

“…
The inclusion of Little Birds — small attack aircraft designed to insert operators onto the ground and provide close air support — suggests preparations for potential missions that could see U.S. boots on the ground, Cancian said.

The Black Hawks could be used in support, he added, carrying additional troops, combat search-and-rescue or other capabilities.
The helicopters were conducting training flights to keep proficient and provide options for Trump and the Pentagon in the ongoing missions in the region, a U.S. official said.

The flights should not be taken as evidence of drills for a land assault into Venezuela, the official cautioned, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing operations.…”
 
nycfan said:
“…
The inclusion of Little Birds — small attack aircraft designed to insert operators onto the ground and provide close air support — suggests preparations for potential missions that could see U.S. boots on the ground, Cancian said.

The Black Hawks could be used in support, he added, carrying additional troops, combat search-and-rescue or other capabilities.
The helicopters were conducting training flights to keep proficient and provide options for Trump and the Pentagon in the ongoing missions in the region, a U.S. official said.

The flights should not be taken as evidence of drills for a land assault into Venezuela, the official cautioned, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing operations.…”
Click to expand...
Seems like someone in the Trump administration watched the movie, "Clear and Present Danger" a few too many times.
 
www.nytimes.com

Military Commander Overseeing Escalating Attacks Off Venezuela Coast Is Stepping Down, Officials Say

Adm. Alvin Holsey is leaving less than a year into his tenure, and as the Pentagon escalates attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Admiral Holsey, in charge of the Navy's South American operation, resigned. No reason given. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's resigning because he refuses to carry out illegal orders. If so, he's a hero. Hopefully he will inspire other military officers to stand up for the law.
 
superrific said:
www.nytimes.com

Military Commander Overseeing Escalating Attacks Off Venezuela Coast Is Stepping Down, Officials Say

Adm. Alvin Holsey is leaving less than a year into his tenure, and as the Pentagon escalates attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Admiral Holsey, in charge of the Navy's South American operation, resigned. No reason given. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's resigning because he refuses to carry out illegal orders. If so, he's a hero. Hopefully he will inspire other military officers to stand up for the law.
Click to expand...
Admiral Halsey notified me
He had to have a berth or he couldn't get to sea
I had another look and I had a cup of tea
And a butter pie (a butter pie?)
(The butter wouldn't melt, so I put it in the pie, alright?)

 
superrific said:
www.nytimes.com

Military Commander Overseeing Escalating Attacks Off Venezuela Coast Is Stepping Down, Officials Say

Adm. Alvin Holsey is leaving less than a year into his tenure, and as the Pentagon escalates attacks against boats in the Caribbean Sea.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Admiral Holsey, in charge of the Navy's South American operation, resigned. No reason given. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's resigning because he refuses to carry out illegal orders. If so, he's a hero. Hopefully he will inspire other military officers to stand up for the law.
Click to expand...
Certainly it has been reported that disagreements over the Caribbean operations are related to his resignation. That may or may not mean he thought he was being given illegal orders. If he did refuse, I'm glad he did. But personally I'd prefer that officers in that scenario refuse to carry out the order but also not quit, because when they just quit there's no real public explanation of what happened and they just get replaced with someone who will carry out the same order.
 
rodoheel said:
Certainly it has been reported that disagreements over the Caribbean operations are related to his resignation. That may or may not mean he thought he was being given illegal orders. If he did refuse, I'm glad he did. But personally I'd prefer that officers in that scenario refuse to carry out the order but also not quit, because when they just quit there's no real public explanation of what happened and they just get replaced with someone who will carry out the same order.
Click to expand...
1. It has to be illegal orders. For one thing, we know they are illegal. Second, he didn't serve for 27 years to resign because he thought shooting fishing boats was stupid. He obviously thought it was wrong and illegal.

2. We have military folks on the board who might be able to add insight, but I think it's an inspiration to the other officers down the chain. The Admiral was a hero. He resigned rather than carry out illegal orders, and thus he is telling the junior officers that they can and should as well.

3. At the very least, it's a sign that the Quantico bullshit did not actually accomplish anything, and that our military is holding strong, so far. I mean, we'll see. It's possible Hegseth could go around the admiral to destroy speedboats, but anything bigger will require planning.
 
superrific said:
1. It has to be illegal orders. For one thing, we know they are illegal. Second, he didn't serve for 27 years to resign because he thought shooting fishing boats was stupid. He obviously thought it was wrong and illegal.

2. We have military folks on the board who might be able to add insight, but I think it's an inspiration to the other officers down the chain. The Admiral was a hero. He resigned rather than carry out illegal orders, and thus he is telling the junior officers that they can and should as well.

3. At the very least, it's a sign that the Quantico bullshit did not actually accomplish anything, and that our military is holding strong, so far. I mean, we'll see. It's possible Hegseth could go around the admiral to destroy speedboats, but anything bigger will require planning.
Click to expand...
The boats are still getting blown up in the Caribbean. So unless there are even worse orders that everyone is refusing to carry out, I'm not sure it's entirely correct to say the military is "holding strong." (I want to be clear that I don't mean that as a criticism of the people still in the military who are in a very difficult position.) I just don't see what retiring rather than executing the order does except ensure that another conscientious officer is out of the military to be replaced by people who have less compunction about following such orders.
 
rodoheel said:
The boats are still getting blown up in the Caribbean. So unless there are even worse orders that everyone is refusing to carry out, I'm not sure it's entirely correct to say the military is "holding strong." (I want to be clear that I don't mean that as a criticism of the people still in the military who are in a very difficult position.) I just don't see what retiring rather than executing the order does except ensure that another conscientious officer is out of the military to be replaced by people who have less compunction about following such orders.
Click to expand...
Well, come on, dude. He can't in good conscience execute the order. So then what?

It's like if your client tells you he's going to lie on the stand. If you leave the case, some sleazebag comes in and the client still lies. But at least you won't be suborning perjury.
 
superrific said:
Well, come on, dude. He can't in good conscience execute the order. So then what?

It's like if your client tells you he's going to lie on the stand. If you leave the case, some sleazebag comes in and the client still lies. But at least you won't be suborning perjury.
Click to expand...
I mean, yeah, I understand what legal ethics rules require when you know your client is lying or when they ask you to do something illegal or unethical. But we're not talking about legal ethics, we're talking about military/governmental service ethics. I will freely cop to it not being a subject I know well, so if there is anything akin to formal rules that tell an officer what to do when they believe they have been given an unlawful order, I'm happy to hear it. But in the absence of such guidance, it seems to be that it would be a more effective form of resistance to refuse to execute the order while remaining in your post until terminated. I.e., force them to fire you.

If you want to make a legal analogy the situation of a general being given an unlawful order strikes me as being a lot of more like in-house counsel being asked by the CEO to do something unlawful than outside counsel representing the client in litigation being told the same thing. If the CEO told an in-house attorney to go file a meritless lawsuit they could just tell them they refused to do it, they wouldn't have to quit. They certainly could quit, but I don't think they have to. And as I said before, I just think if your goal is to keep the unlawful order from being carried out, refusing and remaining in your post unless and until you are forcibly removed is more effective than resigning. Or if you're going to resign, do it will a public resignation letter that explains why you're doing so.
 
rodoheel said:
I mean, yeah, I understand what legal ethics rules require when you know your client is lying or when they ask you to do something illegal or unethical. But we're not talking about legal ethics, we're talking about military/governmental service ethics. I will freely cop to it not being a subject I know well, so if there is anything akin to formal rules that tell an officer what to do when they believe they have been given an unlawful order, I'm happy to hear it. But in the absence of such guidance, it seems to be that it would be a more effective form of resistance to refuse to execute the order while remaining in your post until terminated. I.e., force them to fire you.

If you want to make a legal analogy the situation of a general being given an unlawful order strikes me as being a lot of more like in-house counsel being asked by the CEO to do something unlawful than outside counsel representing the client in litigation being told the same thing. If the CEO told an in-house attorney to go file a meritless lawsuit they could just tell them they refused to do it, they wouldn't have to quit. They certainly could quit, but I don't think they have to. And as I said before, I just think if your goal is to keep the unlawful order from being carried out, refusing and remaining in your post unless and until you are forcibly removed is more effective than resigning. Or if you're going to resign, do it will a public resignation letter that explains why you're doing so.
Click to expand...
See what ChatGPT has to say. Seriously, I suspect he would be required by military ethics and law to do what he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top