The recent calls by members of Congress to disobey “unlawful” orders is at the very least ill advised, and a dangerous slippery slope. Aren’t “unlawful” orders already covered by the UCMJ? Shooting of civilians, mistreatment of prisoners, torturing of enemy combatants, ALL covered already by the UCMJ and enforced by the Judge Advocate Generals Corps (JAG). Clearly, there are laws covering “unlawful” acts by the military which was dramatically portrayed recently in the movie, “Nuremberg.” The Geneva Convention was established after WW II for the very reason of creating a legal framework to set the rules of war.
The very act of putting into question, a legally established precedent is criminal if the intent is to promote a mutiny by military personnel.
Mark Kelly, who is a retired Naval Field Grade Officer, and the other ELECTED OFFICIALS did exactly that. Calls for the military to mutiny, incitement of the military to question lawful orders is a criminal offense.
This is where we are today as Democrats are trying to derail the Trump administration from within. Incitement of members of the military and intelligence services to disobey and question the orders by the Commander in Chief, certainly can be argued as an act of treason.
The Democratic Party, in collaboration with multiple Non-Governmental Agencies are actively trying to close, and dismantle a dually elected government. The shooting and killing of National Guard troops is just the latest example of the lengths those willing to go in order to promote our downfall as a society.
Democratic leadership is morphing into a band of criminality and chaos. Not since the Civil War and the Confederacy, led by Jefferson Davis, has our Union been is such peril.
The “Seditious Six” needs to face the full weight of the Department of Justice.
This represents a complete failure to understand human behavior. Since you often cite the Bible, it should teach you everything you need to know about this subject. The Bible discusses temptation extensively—James 1:12 states, "Blessed is the man who endures temptation..." Temptation has existed since before the invention of religion; the Bible simply documents what has always been part of human nature.
Our country has already tried your approach with Prohibition. It failed. You cannot regulate away temptation because doing so attempts to regulate human behavior itself.
This means the problem isn't the supply of drugs but rather the demand for them. Basic capitalism teaches that without demand, there is no supply. This should lead us to examine why the demand exists, along with understanding that due to human nature, we can only hope to reduce—not eradicate—drug usage.
Before repeatedly focusing on the imported supply issue, consider how every time a barrier has arisen, people have found alternative ways to achieve the same feeling. What were the drugs of choice in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s, and now the 2020s? It wasn't fentanyl in the 60s and 70s—fentanyl only became a significant issue about ten years ago. Opioid usage predates religion itself. Synthetic drugs have over 200 years of history, with morphine being outlawed numerous times. Consider the Civil War—what would have happened without morphine? The point is that drug preferences change, and drugs can be manufactured domestically. When people seek that feeling, they will find a method to obtain it. Temptation is powerful.
Now to your continued mischaracterizations: "Now that Trump is trying to round up the worst of the worst, including those with final orders to deport, those with a criminal record, and those who trafficked minors, Democrats are urging a revolution against his orders." You've lumped all these people together inappropriately. Someone with a final deportation order is not necessarily "the worst of the worst." That person may have never committed any crime beyond overstaying their visa. Equating them with rapists, murderers, or robbers is absurd. This is where conservatives fail to understand basic English: "one" does not mean "all." One is singular. Some means more than one but not all. All means everyone. Your constant conflation of these terms suggests either illiteracy or a deliberate agenda.
Regarding the senators' statement—they're simply reaffirming what is already established law. Here is the Army's oath of enlistment: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
See that line about the UCMJ? That references Article 92, which addresses unlawful orders. In your worldview, if the President ordered an Army private to murder a civilian on Park Avenue, that would be a legal order. It is not.
You write: "America's strength against losing our Constitution lies in the brilliance of our founding fathers to separate the balance of powers among the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. Because the Democrat Party won't accept the reality that Trump has won two elections, and because they have lost control of the House, they have turned to lawfare to stop Trump at all costs."
Your first sentence is entirely accurate. The second is incoherent. You're making an "all" claim that isn't supported by facts. I don't see Democrats in office claiming Trump didn't win. The irony of using "lawfare"—a term describing what happens to every administration—reveals your lack of principle. How many state attorneys general sued the Biden administration? How many sued Trump's first administration? How many sued Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan? It goes on and on. Your own first sentence explains this accurately: the opposing party will always use available mechanisms to impede the other side.
The word illiterate describes your response. If you would bother to learn the definitions of the words or clichés that you use, it might come across as if you understand what you are writing. Your response makes absolutely no sense with the word you chose.
May I suggest you use a dictionary to look up the word you keep espousing? In the best Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."
Agree. Can you image if a bunch of Republican tried the treanous stint that the seditious six did??
The Dems somehow get a pass on everything from the liberal community and not see that the claiming and citing the Constitution can also be cited for the treasonous 6 and their ability to undermine our President
The Big joke is on them as the military would never turn their back on the CIC and Hegeseth cleared out the dead weight early on his appointment.
The military did turn their back on Joe Biden,if you all remember that.
Illegals who cross the border illegally are criminals because crossing the border and not being not going through the proper channels is an illegal act.
Thousands of people have died due to illegals and cartels bring drugs into this country. Fentanyl for one has killed many children. I don't think children are choosing to take those drugs like the hippies in the 70's and that is the real problem.
How many judges have tried to stop Trump at every policy and act that he has approves. That is lawfare and that's why Biden and obummmer kept appointing judges. The Dems use the judges as lawfare to stop Trump's agenda.Im sure it's been Hundreds of them but Trump has won when taken to the Supreme Court.
"Illegals who cross the border illegally are criminals because crossing the border and not being not going through the proper channels is an illegal act." Do you even comprehend how ignorant of the English language that sentence is?
A person crossing the border outside of the checkpoint is not an illegal person. They have violated a US law, one that is punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months (First offense). That, though, is just one part of that law. This law also contains sections on fraudulently entering the US. This means a person who lies to gain entry has violated a law. HOWEVER . . . this is America. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We are supposed to be a country of laws, and thus, until the person is tried, they are not illegal. Defining what the proper channels are is comical, as it is a moving target.
So let me rewrite what you wrote so it doesn't bastardize the English language. A person who crosses the border, outside a designated crossing point, has violated 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Upon capture and trial, depending upon the outcome of the trial, they can be considered an illegal alien. However, this does not stop them from applying for asylum. If the person is accepted into asylum, they can still be prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and face the consequences of that trial.
They are illegal,hence the name when they cross the border illegally.
Sorry to burst your bubble but those are the facts.
A legal resident is a person who holds green card,legally.
I don't understand until proven innocent. If you don't have the proper doumentaion required for legal entry to the US,and many other countries,you are illegal or a visitor.
There's no interpretation of the law other than the proper documentation to prove a foreigners status.
Just because you proclaim it to be a fact doesn't make it a reality.
I live in a country with a judicial system. I live in a country where there is a judge, a jury, and an executor, all separate. Why you feel the need to be judge, jury, and executioner by yourself does not negate the system.
So until the trial comes into place, they are not illegal. The whole concept, again, of being innocent until proven guilty is at play here.
I hope that you are not saying that members of the military are obliged to follow any order given by the president, but it certainly reads that way. It's perfectly legitimate for soldiers and others to be reminded that there are limits to passing the buck.
Against the constitution or military code of justice.That's what the code of justice makes explicit, and what Kelly and the others said. The real issue is that sitting US senators and congressmen felt it necessary to say so.
Prove it, don't just give an opinion. Show where in the constitution, or law, or code of military justice it says this was illegal. The real crime was if Hegseth did give an order to kill the two guys in the water. I hope he does haul Kelly up before a court martial, he'd end up with so much egg on his face he'd be nicknamed Omelette.
The greatest threat to our Democracy at this time is our spineless Republican ‘majority’. Their failure to nuke the filibuster and/or codify all Trump EO’s shows that the fake Republican party is what will cost us our country. They are showing their true ‘do nothing and wait him out’ colors. It would be a long ugly road but I fear Elon is right and we need a new Rino free party. Republicans could stop all this in 30 days if they nuke the filibuster. They won’t and thus the Democrats will do it the first 30 seconds they are back in power and then they will remain in power permanently. We will have our own party to thank. They are complicit in this.
In 1944, the captain of the U-boat U-852 sank the Greek steamer Peleus in the South Atlantic. There were 12 survivors, including an officer, who was given assurances they would be rescued the following day by Allied forces. But the U-852’s Kapitänleutnant Heinz Eck suddenly ordered his crew to fire on the 12 survivors and attack them with grenades when machine gun fire didn’t suffice to sink their life rafts.
Eck and four others were subsequently charged with war crimes. The charges were in connection with “the act of firing at the survivors and not the original sinking of the ship.” Eck argued “operational necessity,” claiming the survivors could have rallied and attacked the submarine. But all of the men were convicted.
It’s clear that even in wartime, an attack like the one on September 2 is a crime. If we are not at war, it’s quite simply murder.
Trump has claimed the attacks in international waters are about fighting a war against drug trafficking. But he doesn’t seem serious. He announced on social media that he was granting a full pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, the former Honduran president convicted in the United States on drug trafficking charges that involved his protection of cartel activity and personnel. Trump said he would issue the pardon because “many friends” had asked him to.
Simply wrong. The President has declared Venezuelan drug traffickers as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and therefore, the President may order military action against these combatants under Title 10.
The example you use of the killing of American sailors, in uniform on the high seas, ordered by a German U-Boat Commander was indeed a war crime and in violation of the Geneva Convention.
This is missing the point. The boat was attacked and sunk on Sept 2. Two crew survived and were clinging to the wreckage in the water. The US Navy comander ordered a second strike to kill the two survivers. This was done. I see no difference between the two cases. Where does the responsibility for this war crime rest? How high up the chain of command do we go?
No Heald, the actions by our Navy in international waters does not invoke the need for some form of Scopes monkey trial in order to impeach the President.
BTW, where was your outrage and indignation when President Obama ordered the death of a US citizen by way of a drone strike?
Timely article. Considering recent news that on September 2, 2025, a U.S. military strike hit a small boat originating from Venezuela that the Trump administration said was a “narco‑terrorist” drug‑smuggling vessel. After the first strike, at least two people reportedly survived in the water. According to multiple media reports citing anonymous officials, U.S. Special Operations forces then carried out a second strike that deliberately killed those survivors. This has triggered bipartisan investigations by both the Senate and House. Fox calls this Fake News - I guess we'll see.
Anonymous sources lie more than identified sources. Fox news is anti-Trump controlled opposition but in this case I agree that the anonymous sources are probably fake news. Generally I find Fox to be fake news.
Yes, anonymous sources do lie more than identified ones - and they keep their jobs longer. I would assume that the Republican lead investigations in Congress will have a chat with them. I wouldn't call Fox anti-Trump but they do seem less in love than they used to be. Perhaps since his administration now has about 20 former FOX employees, he gave jobs to all the true loyalists?
Yes,I agree. I would even go back to 2016 with Fox News as they are the ones that turned Republicans off from voting in 2020 because of " mean tweets".
You are justifying the killing of unarmed civilians in international waters. Here is a definition of war crimes:
“The United Nations defines war crimes as serious breaches of international humanitarian law committed against civilians or enemy combatants during armed conflict, for which perpetrators may be held criminally liable. Examples of war crimes include murder, torture, and intentionally directing attacks against civilian populations. Additionally, war crimes are recognized as serious violations of international humanitarian law under both customary and conventional international law.”
Well, there is a difference between illegal and unlawful? Illegal is contrary to, or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. Unlawful is not conforming to, or permitted by or recognized by laws or rules. So what the Trump administration is doing is illegal and that is the term the senators used.
Blowing up random boats off the coast of Venezuela because they allegedly are drug smugglers is disproportionate and immoral, and for you pragmatists out there it's just bad optics and another opportunity to attack Trump before the public. And what's the moral evil in refusing to blow up a civilian vessel? A "sin" against American foreign policy perhaps but not the moral law.
If you want to end the opioid crisis you raise a moral, just society. The modern world is one that lacks transcendance and in place of God people seek out idols to serve or find solace in. For people who are destitute and suffering this sadly leads to opiods.
Without ranting for too long, Trump instead of blasting potentially innocent people should look to the Church and encourage the formation of communities in places lacking strong families and sense of belonging, after all it's not wealthy people with loving families most embroiled in this crisis.
To make sense of Trumps bombing Venezuela narco boats read Substack journalist Elizabeth Nickson’s column of November 29, 2025 about elections. Sorry I don’t know how to provide the link?! You will understand why eliminating the “Narco Terrorists” is happening.
It’s plain as day that these six politicos have committed sedition at the very least…see 18 U.S.C. § 2387(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 circulates any writing, circular, advertisement, letter, or other publication advising, counseling, urging, or in any manner causing or attempting to cause 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…
likely, these people may be subject to higher crimes, since they know that we are at war with the narco drug states…any of these actors affiliated with the CIA?
FYI…this isn’t just about Maduro. This is the final nail in the coffin for the CIA-black-budget narco pipeline that’s been running since the 80s. Sinaloa, CJNG, Tren de Aragua, they’re all tentacles of the SAME beast that’s been protected by rogue elements inside Langley and the Pentagon for decades. Who armed the Venezuelan “gangs” that flooded swing states right before the election? Who flew the untraceable Gulfstreams full of product and kids out of Maturín and Maiquetía while Biden was napping….the list goes on…Same people who ran Iran-Contra, fast-forward 40 years. Trump isn’t just closing waterways & airspace, he’s cutting the oxygen to the deep-state money laundering superhighway that’s been funding black sites, color revolutions, & child trafficking networks across the hemisphere…
The recent calls by members of Congress to disobey “unlawful” orders is at the very least ill advised, and a dangerous slippery slope. Aren’t “unlawful” orders already covered by the UCMJ? Shooting of civilians, mistreatment of prisoners, torturing of enemy combatants, ALL covered already by the UCMJ and enforced by the Judge Advocate Generals Corps (JAG). Clearly, there are laws covering “unlawful” acts by the military which was dramatically portrayed recently in the movie, “Nuremberg.” The Geneva Convention was established after WW II for the very reason of creating a legal framework to set the rules of war.
The very act of putting into question, a legally established precedent is criminal if the intent is to promote a mutiny by military personnel.
Mark Kelly, who is a retired Naval Field Grade Officer, and the other ELECTED OFFICIALS did exactly that. Calls for the military to mutiny, incitement of the military to question lawful orders is a criminal offense.
This is where we are today as Democrats are trying to derail the Trump administration from within. Incitement of members of the military and intelligence services to disobey and question the orders by the Commander in Chief, certainly can be argued as an act of treason.
The Democratic Party, in collaboration with multiple Non-Governmental Agencies are actively trying to close, and dismantle a dually elected government. The shooting and killing of National Guard troops is just the latest example of the lengths those willing to go in order to promote our downfall as a society.
Democratic leadership is morphing into a band of criminality and chaos. Not since the Civil War and the Confederacy, led by Jefferson Davis, has our Union been is such peril.
The “Seditious Six” needs to face the full weight of the Department of Justice.
Here we go again.
This represents a complete failure to understand human behavior. Since you often cite the Bible, it should teach you everything you need to know about this subject. The Bible discusses temptation extensively—James 1:12 states, "Blessed is the man who endures temptation..." Temptation has existed since before the invention of religion; the Bible simply documents what has always been part of human nature.
Our country has already tried your approach with Prohibition. It failed. You cannot regulate away temptation because doing so attempts to regulate human behavior itself.
This means the problem isn't the supply of drugs but rather the demand for them. Basic capitalism teaches that without demand, there is no supply. This should lead us to examine why the demand exists, along with understanding that due to human nature, we can only hope to reduce—not eradicate—drug usage.
Before repeatedly focusing on the imported supply issue, consider how every time a barrier has arisen, people have found alternative ways to achieve the same feeling. What were the drugs of choice in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s, and now the 2020s? It wasn't fentanyl in the 60s and 70s—fentanyl only became a significant issue about ten years ago. Opioid usage predates religion itself. Synthetic drugs have over 200 years of history, with morphine being outlawed numerous times. Consider the Civil War—what would have happened without morphine? The point is that drug preferences change, and drugs can be manufactured domestically. When people seek that feeling, they will find a method to obtain it. Temptation is powerful.
Now to your continued mischaracterizations: "Now that Trump is trying to round up the worst of the worst, including those with final orders to deport, those with a criminal record, and those who trafficked minors, Democrats are urging a revolution against his orders." You've lumped all these people together inappropriately. Someone with a final deportation order is not necessarily "the worst of the worst." That person may have never committed any crime beyond overstaying their visa. Equating them with rapists, murderers, or robbers is absurd. This is where conservatives fail to understand basic English: "one" does not mean "all." One is singular. Some means more than one but not all. All means everyone. Your constant conflation of these terms suggests either illiteracy or a deliberate agenda.
Regarding the senators' statement—they're simply reaffirming what is already established law. Here is the Army's oath of enlistment: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
See that line about the UCMJ? That references Article 92, which addresses unlawful orders. In your worldview, if the President ordered an Army private to murder a civilian on Park Avenue, that would be a legal order. It is not.
You write: "America's strength against losing our Constitution lies in the brilliance of our founding fathers to separate the balance of powers among the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. Because the Democrat Party won't accept the reality that Trump has won two elections, and because they have lost control of the House, they have turned to lawfare to stop Trump at all costs."
Your first sentence is entirely accurate. The second is incoherent. You're making an "all" claim that isn't supported by facts. I don't see Democrats in office claiming Trump didn't win. The irony of using "lawfare"—a term describing what happens to every administration—reveals your lack of principle. How many state attorneys general sued the Biden administration? How many sued Trump's first administration? How many sued Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan? It goes on and on. Your own first sentence explains this accurately: the opposing party will always use available mechanisms to impede the other side.
That is one lame-ass post Davie. You have said less with more words than I would have thought possible.
The word ‘psychobabble’ comes to mind.
The word illiterate describes your response. If you would bother to learn the definitions of the words or clichés that you use, it might come across as if you understand what you are writing. Your response makes absolutely no sense with the word you chose.
Yup. I was right. Psychobabble. Thanks for confirming.
May I suggest you use a dictionary to look up the word you keep espousing? In the best Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."
Oh it means exactly what I intend it to amigo. Exactly. May I suggest you take your meds?
Agree. Can you image if a bunch of Republican tried the treanous stint that the seditious six did??
The Dems somehow get a pass on everything from the liberal community and not see that the claiming and citing the Constitution can also be cited for the treasonous 6 and their ability to undermine our President
The Big joke is on them as the military would never turn their back on the CIC and Hegeseth cleared out the dead weight early on his appointment.
The military did turn their back on Joe Biden,if you all remember that.
Illegals who cross the border illegally are criminals because crossing the border and not being not going through the proper channels is an illegal act.
Thousands of people have died due to illegals and cartels bring drugs into this country. Fentanyl for one has killed many children. I don't think children are choosing to take those drugs like the hippies in the 70's and that is the real problem.
How many judges have tried to stop Trump at every policy and act that he has approves. That is lawfare and that's why Biden and obummmer kept appointing judges. The Dems use the judges as lawfare to stop Trump's agenda.Im sure it's been Hundreds of them but Trump has won when taken to the Supreme Court.
"Illegals who cross the border illegally are criminals because crossing the border and not being not going through the proper channels is an illegal act." Do you even comprehend how ignorant of the English language that sentence is?
A person crossing the border outside of the checkpoint is not an illegal person. They have violated a US law, one that is punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months (First offense). That, though, is just one part of that law. This law also contains sections on fraudulently entering the US. This means a person who lies to gain entry has violated a law. HOWEVER . . . this is America. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We are supposed to be a country of laws, and thus, until the person is tried, they are not illegal. Defining what the proper channels are is comical, as it is a moving target.
So let me rewrite what you wrote so it doesn't bastardize the English language. A person who crosses the border, outside a designated crossing point, has violated 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Upon capture and trial, depending upon the outcome of the trial, they can be considered an illegal alien. However, this does not stop them from applying for asylum. If the person is accepted into asylum, they can still be prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and face the consequences of that trial.
They are illegal,hence the name when they cross the border illegally.
Sorry to burst your bubble but those are the facts.
A legal resident is a person who holds green card,legally.
I don't understand until proven innocent. If you don't have the proper doumentaion required for legal entry to the US,and many other countries,you are illegal or a visitor.
There's no interpretation of the law other than the proper documentation to prove a foreigners status.
Just because you proclaim it to be a fact doesn't make it a reality.
I live in a country with a judicial system. I live in a country where there is a judge, a jury, and an executor, all separate. Why you feel the need to be judge, jury, and executioner by yourself does not negate the system.
So until the trial comes into place, they are not illegal. The whole concept, again, of being innocent until proven guilty is at play here.
I believe this could actually be called a soft coup.
I hope that you are not saying that members of the military are obliged to follow any order given by the president, but it certainly reads that way. It's perfectly legitimate for soldiers and others to be reminded that there are limits to passing the buck.
They actually are. As he is the CIC. Now they can choose not to personally but could be court marshalled.
That is exactly contradicted by the military code of justice. The only reason for a court marshal would be if a legal order was refused.
They can only refuse the CIC 's orders if it goes against the Constitution.
Against the constitution or military code of justice.That's what the code of justice makes explicit, and what Kelly and the others said. The real issue is that sitting US senators and congressmen felt it necessary to say so.
What they do was treasonous.
Prove it, don't just give an opinion. Show where in the constitution, or law, or code of military justice it says this was illegal. The real crime was if Hegseth did give an order to kill the two guys in the water. I hope he does haul Kelly up before a court martial, he'd end up with so much egg on his face he'd be nicknamed Omelette.
The greatest threat to our Democracy at this time is our spineless Republican ‘majority’. Their failure to nuke the filibuster and/or codify all Trump EO’s shows that the fake Republican party is what will cost us our country. They are showing their true ‘do nothing and wait him out’ colors. It would be a long ugly road but I fear Elon is right and we need a new Rino free party. Republicans could stop all this in 30 days if they nuke the filibuster. They won’t and thus the Democrats will do it the first 30 seconds they are back in power and then they will remain in power permanently. We will have our own party to thank. They are complicit in this.
Agree
Excellent article
In 1944, the captain of the U-boat U-852 sank the Greek steamer Peleus in the South Atlantic. There were 12 survivors, including an officer, who was given assurances they would be rescued the following day by Allied forces. But the U-852’s Kapitänleutnant Heinz Eck suddenly ordered his crew to fire on the 12 survivors and attack them with grenades when machine gun fire didn’t suffice to sink their life rafts.
Eck and four others were subsequently charged with war crimes. The charges were in connection with “the act of firing at the survivors and not the original sinking of the ship.” Eck argued “operational necessity,” claiming the survivors could have rallied and attacked the submarine. But all of the men were convicted.
It’s clear that even in wartime, an attack like the one on September 2 is a crime. If we are not at war, it’s quite simply murder.
Trump has claimed the attacks in international waters are about fighting a war against drug trafficking. But he doesn’t seem serious. He announced on social media that he was granting a full pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, the former Honduran president convicted in the United States on drug trafficking charges that involved his protection of cartel activity and personnel. Trump said he would issue the pardon because “many friends” had asked him to.
Simply wrong. The President has declared Venezuelan drug traffickers as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and therefore, the President may order military action against these combatants under Title 10.
The example you use of the killing of American sailors, in uniform on the high seas, ordered by a German U-Boat Commander was indeed a war crime and in violation of the Geneva Convention.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/10/assessing-the-facts-and-legal-questions-about-the-u-s-strikes-on-alleged-drug-boats/
This is missing the point. The boat was attacked and sunk on Sept 2. Two crew survived and were clinging to the wreckage in the water. The US Navy comander ordered a second strike to kill the two survivers. This was done. I see no difference between the two cases. Where does the responsibility for this war crime rest? How high up the chain of command do we go?
No Heald, the actions by our Navy in international waters does not invoke the need for some form of Scopes monkey trial in order to impeach the President.
BTW, where was your outrage and indignation when President Obama ordered the death of a US citizen by way of a drone strike?
So let me get this staright. Killing two survivors od a vessel the USN attacked is perfectly ok in your wheel house?
It is not in mine. The USN senior officer present is responsible for murder.
The next question is how far up the chain of command does responsibility go?
“You can’t handle the truth!”
J. Nicholson
And Benghazi????
How. About how many people died from drug trafficking that the Terrorists caused
and harm our citizens
If they have been designated as a Terrorist organization then they are indeed considered terrorists and should be treated as such.
Maduro is not our foe.
Timely article. Considering recent news that on September 2, 2025, a U.S. military strike hit a small boat originating from Venezuela that the Trump administration said was a “narco‑terrorist” drug‑smuggling vessel. After the first strike, at least two people reportedly survived in the water. According to multiple media reports citing anonymous officials, U.S. Special Operations forces then carried out a second strike that deliberately killed those survivors. This has triggered bipartisan investigations by both the Senate and House. Fox calls this Fake News - I guess we'll see.
Anonymous sources lie more than identified sources. Fox news is anti-Trump controlled opposition but in this case I agree that the anonymous sources are probably fake news. Generally I find Fox to be fake news.
Just a troll. Ignore him.
Yes, anonymous sources do lie more than identified ones - and they keep their jobs longer. I would assume that the Republican lead investigations in Congress will have a chat with them. I wouldn't call Fox anti-Trump but they do seem less in love than they used to be. Perhaps since his administration now has about 20 former FOX employees, he gave jobs to all the true loyalists?
Key word is Former
Well I would look into other Presidents and who they appointed before calling out the current administration.
Yes,I agree. I would even go back to 2016 with Fox News as they are the ones that turned Republicans off from voting in 2020 because of " mean tweets".
Sorry don't watch Fox owned by Disney.
You are justifying the killing of unarmed civilians in international waters. Here is a definition of war crimes:
“The United Nations defines war crimes as serious breaches of international humanitarian law committed against civilians or enemy combatants during armed conflict, for which perpetrators may be held criminally liable. Examples of war crimes include murder, torture, and intentionally directing attacks against civilian populations. Additionally, war crimes are recognized as serious violations of international humanitarian law under both customary and conventional international law.”
Sounds like war crimes to me.
I Think they were armed if they were transporting drugs. The two go hand in hand
Guilty until proven innocent?
Looks like we'll never know.
Well, there is a difference between illegal and unlawful? Illegal is contrary to, or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. Unlawful is not conforming to, or permitted by or recognized by laws or rules. So what the Trump administration is doing is illegal and that is the term the senators used.
Blowing up random boats off the coast of Venezuela because they allegedly are drug smugglers is disproportionate and immoral, and for you pragmatists out there it's just bad optics and another opportunity to attack Trump before the public. And what's the moral evil in refusing to blow up a civilian vessel? A "sin" against American foreign policy perhaps but not the moral law.
If you want to end the opioid crisis you raise a moral, just society. The modern world is one that lacks transcendance and in place of God people seek out idols to serve or find solace in. For people who are destitute and suffering this sadly leads to opiods.
Without ranting for too long, Trump instead of blasting potentially innocent people should look to the Church and encourage the formation of communities in places lacking strong families and sense of belonging, after all it's not wealthy people with loving families most embroiled in this crisis.
To make sense of Trumps bombing Venezuela narco boats read Substack journalist Elizabeth Nickson’s column of November 29, 2025 about elections. Sorry I don’t know how to provide the link?! You will understand why eliminating the “Narco Terrorists” is happening.
It’s plain as day that these six politicos have committed sedition at the very least…see 18 U.S.C. § 2387(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 circulates any writing, circular, advertisement, letter, or other publication advising, counseling, urging, or in any manner causing or attempting to cause 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…
likely, these people may be subject to higher crimes, since they know that we are at war with the narco drug states…any of these actors affiliated with the CIA?
FYI…this isn’t just about Maduro. This is the final nail in the coffin for the CIA-black-budget narco pipeline that’s been running since the 80s. Sinaloa, CJNG, Tren de Aragua, they’re all tentacles of the SAME beast that’s been protected by rogue elements inside Langley and the Pentagon for decades. Who armed the Venezuelan “gangs” that flooded swing states right before the election? Who flew the untraceable Gulfstreams full of product and kids out of Maturín and Maiquetía while Biden was napping….the list goes on…Same people who ran Iran-Contra, fast-forward 40 years. Trump isn’t just closing waterways & airspace, he’s cutting the oxygen to the deep-state money laundering superhighway that’s been funding black sites, color revolutions, & child trafficking networks across the hemisphere…
Flooded swing states?