The Seditious Ring Leader in the senate is finally asked the hard questions.

[dmallord]

18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1)
advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2)
distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
(b)
For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 46, 63 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, § 515(f)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3236.)

In addition they can be prosecuted under the UCMJ. If a retired officer uses their rank, reputation, or platform to influence active-duty service members to disobey lawful orders, they can be prosecuted under several UCMJ articles, most notably Articles 92, 94, and 134. Look them up for yourself.

That's correct. And none of these paragraphs were violated by any of the six congress members, one a military combat veteran, being maligned by the current secretary of defense, or is it war?

Newscasters have cited background on this matter stemming from a naval JAG officer raising questions about the alleged drug boat attacks. He was removed from the decision process as a result of it. Fuck regulations, it seems, it's about obeying orders, not questioning the legality of them.

Perhaps it was foresight over the current imbroglio occurring in the Venezuelan drug boat killings. You know, when an alleged enemy vessel was targeted and neutralized? The one where post op surveillance found survivors, and the order came down to annihilate the disabled vessel and survivors rather than follow normal rescue procedures. The second questionable order was followed and there are no survivors, no witnesses to testify. Following Pickled Pete's orders, there were to be no survivors. Now what?

Ask yourself, now. How many violations of international and UCMJ regulations did this chain of events violate? And weigh in on who is to be held accountable?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

It’s so telling, and you make it abundantly clear:

Trump and MAGA consider it an attack on the administration to encourage soldiers to disobey illegal orders.


A responsible and appropriate response from any honest POTUS would have been, “Well yeah. Of course.”

I’ve already explained this Johnny-come-lately. The refresher is our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines don’t need a refresher course from the Seditious Six congressional morons. They already know this. The congressmen (especially AstroYoda) should know this. So what are they doing then?

Oh, BTW, any order is assumed to be legal. Might better brush up on your UCMJ…any Idea what that is?