Same Democrats

[Le duke]

He said he believes he’s guilty. Very different 

No, his exact words were: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.” That’s a declaration.

He also shared a post saying that Kelly and others should be executed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Le duke said:

No, his exact words were: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.” That’s a declaration.

He also shared a post saying that Kelly and others should be executed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seditious BEHAVIOR 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

No, his exact words were: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.” That’s a declaration.

He also shared a post saying that Kelly and others should be executed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Executed by the military court 

[Le duke]

And you think Miley wants to open up his entire career for scrutiny in a military court?  Not a Chance 

That’s not how this works.

They would have to charge him for a specific crime.

What crime do you think he committed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

7 minutes ago, Le duke said:

They are not fishing expeditions.

They would have to have very specific charges related to his military service. They can’t pull things out of a hat.

But again…he can’t get a fair trial, so it’s irrelevant. As soon as they try to recall him, he gets an injunction from a federal court, arguing that his sixth amendment rights were violated by an officer unduly influenced by Hegseth and Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You think the military trials have always been fair? 

[Le duke]

Executed by the military court 

Pretending, for a moment, that military courts actually executed people, do you not understand how this unfairly impacts potential jurors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, Le duke said:

That’s not how this works.

They would have to charge him for a specific crime.

What crime do you think he committed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not how what works?  They can ask him anything they want about his feelings towards Trump 

[Le duke]

You think the military trials have always been fair? 

They are supposed to be.

It seems you don’t believe they should, though. That is troubling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Le duke said:

 

Pretending, for a moment, that military courts actually executed people, do you not understand how this unfairly impacts potential jurors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There’s more than one definition of executed skippy 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Le duke said:

They are supposed to be.

It seems you don’t believe they should, though. That is troubling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said they shouldn’t be did I? 

[Le duke]

Not how what works?  They can ask him anything they want about his feelings towards Trump 

And his lawyers can object, as that is irrelevant, and then he doesn’t answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Le duke said:

And his lawyers can object, as that is irrelevant, and then he doesn’t answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jurors in a military court are ??? 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

And his lawyers can object, as that is irrelevant, and then he doesn’t answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ya that always helps your case 

Edited November 26, 2025 by JimmySpeaks

[Le duke]

Jurors in a military court are ??? 

Commissioned military officers, in this case, whose chain of command includes Hegseth and Trump. Both of whom have made prejudicial statements about Kelly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

Execute : to put forth, carry out

Execute : put to death by legal authority 

 

those are in order 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

Commissioned military officers, in this case, whose chain of command includes Hegseth and Trump. Both of whom have made prejudicial statements about Kelly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In your opinion they have 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Commissioned military officers, in this case, whose chain of command includes Hegseth and Trump. Both of whom have made prejudicial statements about Kelly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Kelly has done the same 

Edited November 26, 2025 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

11 minutes ago, Le duke said:

And his lawyers can object, as that is irrelevant, and then he doesn’t answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anything he’s ever said about Trump would be admissible 

[WrestlingRasta]

A former Lt. Colonel JAG officer weighs in with clear cut explanations of the UCMJ and as it relates to the Venezuela situation and current predicament between Mark Kelly, the other Congressmen/Women and the President and Secretary of Defense.    No “political theatre”, just simple explanation for all of us career military and law experts here on this anonymous message board to read.  It is an interesting read: (maybe not as interesting as the comments that I am sure will follow, from those who bother to read it AND those who don’t, but interesting nonetheless)

 

 

U.S. troops are REQUIRED under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse illegal orders — not encouraged, not suggested, REQUIRED.
 > If they obey an illegal order, THEY can be prosecuted.
> And some of the orders floating around right now might be illegal as hell.

Let’s unpack this.

⸻

 1. What the UCMJ actually demands.

A lawful order must:

 Be legal
 Be within the authority of the commander
 Follow U.S. law, treaties, and the law of armed conflict.
 Use force only when force is legally justified

An unlawful order is any command that tells a service member to:

 Kill people who are not lawful combatants
 Use lethal force where force isn’t legally justified
Target civilians or noncombatants
Break U.S. criminal law
Violate maritime or international law
Act outside congressional authorization
Treat law enforcement situations like war

If a recruit followed one of these in basic training, they’d flunk the test.

If a soldier follows it in real life, they can be charged with a crime.

 

⸻

2. When is it actually legal to shoot a vessel on the high seas?

Under U.S. law and international maritime law, lethal force is only authorized when:

 A. The vessel is actively threatening U.S. forces

Ramming, firing, hostile intent — a real threat, not a guess.

 B. The vessel is a legitimate military target in an armed conflict

Which requires…
• A declared war
• OR a congressionally authorized war
• OR an internationally recognized armed conflict

(We’re not at war with Venezuela.)
 

C. Non-lethal force failed and lethal force is necessary to protect life

Not to “speed up interdiction.”
Not because “they ran.”
Not because “it might be drugs.”

SUSPECTED smuggling doesn’t make a vessel a combat target.

⸻

 3. The part that suddenly got awkward: the Venezuelan boats

The administration has admitted that U.S. forces have shot Venezuelan vessels out of the water and then justified it by saying:

“They were drug boats”

> Drug smuggling is a crime, not warfare
> It does not create combatant status
>It does not authorize sinking a vessel
> It does not bypass international law
>It does not justify lethal force

So we ask the questions:

 Who gave the order to fire?
 Under what authority?
 Where was the imminent threat?
 Why weren’t normal interdiction steps used?

If the answers don’t line up with the law?

Then the order was illegal and troops were required to refuse it.

That’s not my opinion.
That’s the UCMJ.

⸻

4. Why they’re attacking Mark Kelly 

Because once Americans understand what an “illegal order” actually is, they start noticing things:

• Some troops are being told to do things on U.S. soil that look like law enforcement without authority
• Some units are being used in ways that stretch or violate congressional limits
• And yes — some maritime engagements look like they jumped straight to lethal force without legal justification

⸻

5. Here’s the truth that is getting muddled.

>The U.S. military answers to the Constitution — not any individual.
>Lawful orders must be obeyed.
>Unlawful orders must be refused.
>If someone in ExSeth’s Pentagon issued commands to sink vessels that weren’t lawful targets, those were illegal orders.
 

[JimmySpeaks]

Anyone find an unlawful order yet? 

[WrestlingRasta]

8 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Anyone find an unlawful order yet? 

The retired Lt Colonel JAG officer appears to believe he’s found at least one.  

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

The retired Lt Colonel JAG officer appears to believe he’s found at least one.  

Appears to believe. Got it. 

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Appears to believe. Got it. 

Well, he flat out states it.   But what does he know....  Not nearly as much as those of us here on this anonymous message board. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Well, he flat out states it.   But what does he know....  Not nearly as much as those of us here on this anonymous message board. 

So it’s more than appears to believe like you just said? 

[Caveira]

34 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

So it’s more than appears to believe like you just said? 

Presidents have been killing terrorists for years.  Decades.   Sometimes even us citizens.  
 

political theater 

39 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Well, he flat out states it.   But what does he know....  Not nearly as much as those of us here on this anonymous message board.