5-0 knows more than special forces too...

yes. They know more about laws than a Green Beret. SF Soldiers cant't write a ticket for speeding, jaywalking etc. Academy is pretty tough too.

All of this hoopla is the left's effort to paint the current administration in a negative light.  It is social engineering targeted towards next years mid-term elections.

The dims want to re-establish power so they can put meaningless and ineffective puppets like hyena and walz in office so they can continue the destruction of our republic and replace it with a wonderful socialist hellhole.

Something like the movie Hunger Games.

The haves with total control over the have-nots.

Where was the noise when obama did this exact same thing.  Only with more collateral damage and destruction.

Kunstler with an interesting idea
Invoke the insurrection act and transfer all cases to military courts.
They won't be so forgiving towards sedition as the Obama/Biden swamp creatures.

https://open.substack.com/pub/jameshowardkunstler/p/when-they-say-democracy-they-dont

All of this hoopla is the left's effort to paint the current administration in a negative light.  It is social engineering targeted towards next years mid-term elections.

The hatred of Trump is inseparable but it cannot ignored that the action presents serious constitutional questions with regards to due process and what force the president can authorize.

5-0 knows more than special forces too...

Apparently the coast guard does....

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QC160WOqp7Y

OP doesn't know what an operations order is.
OP doesn't know what effects are.
OP doesn't know what joint pubs are.
OP has no clue what he is talking about.

You are right that I have never been party to such a secret military operation so I fill my voids of knowledge with experts who have, actual legal experts who have sat in and advised on military strikes.

Sorry but if you may, please explain why obama's order is different than Hegseth's order.  I don't think it is obtuse whataboutism, although I did look it up to try to understand what it means.  I'm not as well read as most of you on this board so would appreciate you helping me out.  I don't see the difference.  And I don't believe anyone made a video back then reminding the military that they can dis-obey illegal orders.

Fair enough, I will explain why I think they are substantially different.

1. Obama's order targeted a completely different type of threat, an Islamic terrorist group intent on killing Americans (and others). Drug dealers, and their employees, at basically businessmen dealing in illegal goods. They aren't trying to kill Americans or bring about a religious war. They are trying to make money selling Americans something that Americans want. Drug dealers do of course play a role in the deaths of drug users but they are not a hostile nation or group trying to kill or terrorize Americans. They are a completely different threat.

2. Obama's orders fell under a congressional approval to target specific terrorist groups. IIRC the original authorization came while Bush was president and it has been continuously used to strike Islamic terrorist groups. There is some debate on whether presidents have been too liberal in using the approval to justify military strikes on targets over the years but the strikes are rooted in congressional approval. Trump's strikes, on the other hand, have no such legal basis. Trump designating them "narco terrorists" does not mean they suddenly fall under the congressional authorization that Obama used. The congressional authorization Obama used does not in any way cover these drug cartels. If Trump had gone to congress and gotten congressional approval then they would be more similar.

3. Obama's strikes were on targets that could not be readily captured, it would be very high risk to try and capture these people. These drug boats on the other hand could be much more easily intercepted. There is not the same need for lethal force since we can easily and relatively safely intercept these drug boats.

Additionally, capturing the drug boat crew serves to provide useful intelligence though that's not why Obama's strikes and Trump's strikes are substantially different.

please cite your sources that it was an illegal order...

I was not arguing that an illegal order had been given, I was saying that the allegation of what Hegseth's ordered constitutes an illegal order. In other words, if what was said about Hegseth's order is accurate, that would be an illegal order. I probably could have worded it clearer. Without knowing exactly what Hegseth said (or wrote) we don't know whether his order was illegal or not.

Yes, this is precisely what I’m talking about.

You claim you are “a conservative” while supporting a heinous video of 6 Dem members of congress inciting the armed services to disobey lawful orders from their chain of command.  Notice I said lawful orders - because no unlawful orders were cited in the video (of course).

I’ve never seen a more vile act in congress, including this Democrat staffer filming himself being buggered in the Judiciary Committee hearing room in the Senate.

Then you throw in

….I don't abandon conservative values as do many MAGA when daddy Trump tells them to….

Nice transtifa touch there,

Comrade

PS - Sorry about being so heavy, I see this is just your way of having fun.  Will adjust accordingly.

I still say you’re a Regressive, but you’re our Regressive.  Blood is thicker than soy lattes.

Aww, I am touched.

Transtifa?  Come up with that one all by yourself?

I support free speech even when I disagree with the speech, that is why I am a conservative. Secondly the video does not incite armed service members to disobey lawful orders so that is a false premise from the start. Reciting the UCMJ isn't illegal.

But lets say I agreed with you that this was terrible behavior by congressmen. Trump's comments are still way worse than anything Kelly said and an affront to the constitution.

it's cute how you ignore the fact that everyone else in the room states that hegseth never said "kill them alll" as alleged in the original story, yet you still claim that those sources are better than the statements of people who were actually in the room

and you are also ignoring this...
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=57840.msg510720#msg510720

I was not arguing that an illegal order had been given, I was saying that the allegation of what Hegseth's ordered constitutes an illegal order. In other words, if what was said about Hegseth's order is accurate, that would be an illegal order. I probably could have worded it clearer. Without knowing exactly what Hegseth said (or wrote) we don't know whether his order was illegal or not.

Aww, I am touched.

Transtifa?  Come up with that one all by yourself?

I support free speech even when I disagree with the speech, that is why I am a conservative. Secondly the video does not incite armed service members to disobey lawful orders so that is a false premise from the start. Reciting the UCMJ isn't illegal.

But lets say I agreed with you that this was terrible behavior by congressmen. Trump's comments are still way worse than anything Kelly said and an affront to the constitution.

Hey EEF

🎶 Have yourself

a merry little Christmas 🎶

Fair enough, I will explain why I think they are substantially different.

1. Obama's order targeted a completely different type of threat, an Islamic terrorist group intent on killing Americans (and others). Drug dealers, and their employees, at basically businessmen dealing in illegal goods. They aren't trying to kill Americans or bring about a religious war. They are trying to make money selling Americans something that Americans want. Drug dealers do of course play a role in the deaths of drug users but they are not a hostile nation or group trying to kill or terrorize Americans. They are a completely different threat.

2. Obama's orders fell under a congressional approval to target specific terrorist groups. IIRC the original authorization came while Bush was president and it has been continuously used to strike Islamic terrorist groups. There is some debate on whether presidents have been too liberal in using the approval to justify military strikes on targets over the years but the strikes are rooted in congressional approval. Trump's strikes, on the other hand, have no such legal basis. Trump designating them "narco terrorists" does not mean they suddenly fall under the congressional authorization that Obama used. The congressional authorization Obama used does not in any way cover these drug cartels. If Trump had gone to congress and gotten congressional approval then they would be more similar.

3. Obama's strikes were on targets that could not be readily captured, it would be very high risk to try and capture these people. These drug boats on the other hand could be much more easily intercepted. There is not the same need for lethal force since we can easily and relatively safely intercept these drug boats.

Additionally, capturing the drug boat crew serves to provide useful intelligence though that's not why Obama's strikes and Trump's strikes are substantially different.

Thanks for your explanation.  While I still support what President Trump is doing, some of the points you made helped me understand more as to why people are in an uproar over this issue.

Thanks for your explanation.  While I still support what President Trump is doing, some of the points you made helped me understand more as to why people are in an uproar over this issue.

Theyre tards. Simple explanation.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You are right that I have never been party to such a secret military operation so I fill my voids of knowledge with experts who have, actual legal experts who have sat in and advised on military strikes.

which ops did they advise on?

which ops did they advise on?

He means those 'experts" CNN and MSNBC parade in front of the camera pretending to know more than every other expert who isn't trying to destroy Trump.

If EEF knows any of the experts he refers to personally and spends copious time picking their legally knowledgable brains, then i'm Santa Claus!

He means those 'experts" CNN and MSNBC parade in front of the camera pretending to know more than every other expert who isn't trying to destroy Trump.

If EEF knows any of the experts he refers to personally and spends copious time picking their legally knowledgable brains, then i'm Santa Claus!

Indeed

Senator Kelly is in deep doo-doo.

I had a feeling he was contemplating a 2028 run for POTUS.  But his stupid video backfired.  He forgot one thing.

He is a retired Captain of the US Navy and is subject to the UCMJ.

Therefore, his remarks in the video borders on sedition.

which ops did they advise on?

Middel east ones but I don't recall the specifics. You are welcome to go and listen to some episodes for more specifics.

Thanks for your explanation.  While I still support what President Trump is doing, some of the points you made helped me understand more as to why people are in an uproar over this issue.

I am not in an uproar, I just have principles I actually hold, not principles when convenient.