Last year Senator Mark Kelly (D) made a video with other Democrats urging the military to refuse orders that they deem "unlawful."

The WH sued for "sedition" and a federal judge ruled that Senator Kelly can not be punished, even though he overrode the president's authority as Commander in Chief.

Now Senator Jeff Merkley (D) is doing a repeat by tweeting to "military leaders" and by saying "You are legally required to refuse orders to commit war crimes."

So he expects them to check with a US law attorney before following orders from the Commander in Chief, and if they don't, then they could face the
death penalty or life imprisonment. (Never mess with Obama's friends.)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

Re: Democrats defend genocide
By: Aaron Thomas to All on Mon Apr 06 2026 08:13 am

Last year Senator Mark Kelly (D) mad
video with other Democrats urging th
military to refuse orders that they
deem "unlawful."

The WH sued for "sedition" and a
federal judge ruled that Senator Kel
can not be punished, even though he
overrode the president's authority a
Commander in Chief.

Now Senator Jeff Merkley (D) is doin
repeat by tweeting to "military
leaders" and by saying "You are lega
required to refuse orders to commit
crimes."

So he expects them to check with a U
law attorney before following orders
from the Commander in Chief, and if
they don't, then they could face the
death penalty or life imprisonment.
(Never mess with Obama's friends.)

Just so you are aware, military leaders
do in fact check in with legal aid
regarding specific orders at the
operational level. So he expects them
to do their job, yes.

That obviously applies less at the
ground level; there, you take an
inherent risk when you refuse orders
and you do so without a guarantee of
legal safety. That said, as a former
soldier, it is literally part of our
duty to obey lawful orders and refuse
unlawful ones to the best of our
abilities, and it is the duty of
general officers to verify the legality
of their orders and actions as well.
This isn't new nor is it hippy-dippy
BS.

If the president ordered a general to
explicitly and knowingly napalm
Iranian citizens chilling on a beach,
for example, they would absolutely be
within their duty to refuse if the
evidence was overwhelmin and without
doubt.


Similarly, if I was ordered to line up
civilians againt a wall and mow them
down, it would be my duty to refuse
thar order. I would be legally
accountable for that.


--Just Post, World Is A Fuck!--

This Quality Shit-Post Brought
To You Via Commodore 64 Ultimate
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

Just so you are aware, military leaders
do in fact check in with legal aid
regarding specific orders at the
operational level. So he expects them
to do their job, yes.

That makes sense, but then what's the senator's point? To look like a big shot? (It's not working.)

Similarly, if I was ordered to line up
civilians againt a wall and mow them
down, it would be my duty to refuse
thar order. I would be legally
accountable for that.

But in Trump's case, he's potentially going to order them to blow up energy facilities to weaken a hostile regime that's killing civilians on a daily basis. It's not clear to me how that's any worse than anything else that's already been done.

"Don't touch those power facilities if Trump tells you to or else you'll be subject to the death penalty!"

The Iranians are committing a more offensive crime than Trump, and he's only trying to stop them, and he even gave them many chances to knock it off.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

On Mon 6-Apr-2026 8:28p, Aaron Thomas@1:342/201.0 said to Max Stubbs:

"Don't touch those power facilities if Trump tells you to or else you'll
be subject to the death penalty!"

The Iranians are committing a more offensive crime than Trump, and he's only trying to stop them, and he even gave them many chances to knock it off.

It's okay to commit war crimes if the other side is commiting war crimes? Do I even have to put effort into explaining what that logic is not only flawed, but disgusting?

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840

Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

The Iranians are committing a more offensive crime than Trump, and he' only trying to stop them, and he even gave them many chances to knock off.

It's okay to commit war crimes if the other side is commiting war
crimes? Do I even have to put effort into explaining what that logic is not only flawed, but disgusting?

You're more disgusted by Trump potentially blowing up a power plant than you are about the Iranians killing 7000 people. That's disgusting.

If they're both "war crimes" then yea, one is worse than the other.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)

So taking the moral high ground, and being a national and a military of law is "digusting"?

Not even going to dignify this line of thought with further response.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840

Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)