Replies to post #553362 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[arizona1]

Following losses in this year’s elections, Republicans have tried to follow in the footsteps of successful Democratic candidates by claiming that they plan to focus on affordability.

The path to championing affordability and eventually backing government policies and legislation that address the cost of goods has not been smooth for the right. President Donald Trump put this on display during a recent interview with Fox News, where he told host Laura Ingraham that affordability is not a real issue.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/11/22/2354837/-Why-Republicans-don-t-actually-give-a-damn-about-affordability?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_1&pm_medium=web

[blackhawks]

Just so YOU know. All of the elected officials in that video served in the military. As such they know the following, which Trump neither knows nor would he understand, being the amoral lawless POS he has demonstrated himself to be.

A military member's oath of office binds them to defend the U.S. Constitution, not an individual, and they are legally obligated to disobey "manifestly unlawful" orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the Constitution or international law, such as intentionally targeting civilians or committing atrocities. Following an illegal order can have severe consequences, including court-martial, and is not a valid legal defense.

The oath and illegal orders

Oath to the Constitution: The oath of enlistment and office is to the Constitution, not the President or other individuals.
Duty to disobey: U.S. military members are required to obey lawful orders but must refuse to carry out orders that are "manifestly unlawful" or "clearly violate the U.S. Constitution or international law".

Examples of unlawful orders: These include orders to harm civilians, torture detainees, or falsify records.

Legal consequences: A service member who follows an illegal order can be held liable and prosecuted. The defense of "following orders" is not valid for a patently illegal command, as established in the precedent of the Nuremberg trials.

Punishment for disobedience: While refusing an illegal order is a legal obligation, failing to obey a lawful order can result in punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Important distinction

"Unlawful" vs. "controversial": It's crucial to distinguish between an "unlawful" order and one that is merely controversial, politically fraught, or considered unwise. The requirement to refuse is only for orders that are "patently illegal"

Genesis AI

[fuagf]

OMOLIVES, Do you really believe those ex-military people who made the video should be put to death. Trump
said they should be, and you said you agreed with Trump re the matter. And what of this bit from your link:

The Real Legal Standards
The core legal concept the lawmakers invoked is correct: military personnel must not carry out blatantly unlawful actions, and their oath is to the Constitution; but the legal standard is narrow, not broad. Unlawful orders are not simply orders someone dislikes or finds questionable. They involve clear violations of U.S. or international law, such as intentionally targeting civilians or committing acts explicitly prohibited by statute. A lawful order that may be controversial, politically fraught or later judged unwise is not “unlawful” under the UCMJ. The video’s broad phrasing risks muddying that vital distinction.
https://www.military.com/feature/2025/11/20/when-lawmakers-lecture-military-why-unlawful-orders-video-misses-point.html

Many legal experts say Trump's boat strikes are illegal. In that case, the orders for the boat strikes would be illegal.

US strikes on Latin American 'drug boats': What do we know, and are they legal?

8 days ago
Matt Murphy & Joshua Cheetham BBC Verify

Questions are mounting over the legality of a wave of US strikes on alleged "drug boats" in the Caribbean Sea, which have killed more than 80 people since September.

President Donald Trump has said the strikes are targeting so-called "narco-terrorists" transporting drugs from Venezuela to the US run by the Tren de Aragua cartel.

Similar announcements have followed in recent weeks, accompanied by grainy footage of the strikes, but the US has provided no evidence of the alleged drug trafficking and few details about who or what was on board each vessel.

US officials said they are acting in self-defence but the strikes have attracted condemnation in the region. In one case, the Colombian president said a boat hit by the US was not Venezuelan, but "Colombian with Colombian citizens inside" - which the White House denied.

UN experts have warned that the "systemic" nature of the strikes "raise serious concerns about the commission of potential international crimes".

BBC Verify spoke to a range of experts in international and maritime law after the first strike. Several said the US may have acted illegally by attacking the vessel.

What does international law say?

The US is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the US military's legal advisors have previously said that the US should "act in a manner consistent with its provisions".

Under the convention, countries agree not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters. There are limited exceptions to this which allow a state to seize a ship, such as a "hot pursuit" where a vessel is chased from a country's waters into the high seas.

"Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures," Prof Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast said.

Prof Moffett added that the use of aggressive tactics must be "reasonable and necessary in self-defence where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials", noting that the US moves were likely "unlawful under the law of the sea".

Are US strikes on alleged cartel members legal?

Experts have also questioned whether the killing of the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua cartel could contravene international law on the use of force.

Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, countries can resort to force when under attack and deploying their military in self-defence. Trump has previously accused the Tren de Aragua cartel of conducting irregular warfare against the US, and the state department has designated the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

After the first strike, Prof Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin told BBC Verify that the American action "stretches the meaning of the term beyond its breaking point".

"The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets," Prof Becker said. "The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organisation."

Prof Moffett added: "Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law."

A memo sent to the US Congress, which was leaked, reportedly said the Trump administration had determined the US was in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels.

Responding to a fifth strike in October, Notre Dame Law School Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell told BBC Verify that "no credible facts or legal principles have come to light to justify these attacks".

"The only relevant law for peace is international law - that is the law of treaties, human rights and statehood," Prof O'Connell wrote in an emailed statement.

But US officials including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have defended the action, which has also been applauded by Republicans in Congress.

Asked about the same strike, a White House official told BBC Verify that Trump had authorised it after the boat left Venezuela crewed by Tren de Aragua members. The official added that the president was committed to using all means to prevent drugs reaching the US.

The Pentagon declined to share the legal advice it obtained before carrying out the strike.

In one strike, carried out on 16 October, there were two survivors - a Colombian and an Ecuadorian, who the US government says were repatriated for "detention and prosecution".

US officials have also faced scrutiny over a follow-up strike - or "double-tap" - on 2 September.

Can Trump launch attacks without congressional approval?

Questions have also been raised as to whether the White House complied with US law in authorising the strikes. The US constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war.

However, Article II - which lays out the president's powers - says that "the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army" and some constitutional experts have suggested that this grants the president the power to authorise strikes against military targets. Trump administration sources have previously cited this provision when defending US strikes on Iran.

But it is unclear whether that provision extends to the use of force against non-state actors such as drug cartels.

Rumen Cholakov, an expert in US constitutional law at King's College London, told BBC Verify that since 9/11, US presidents have relied on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) when carrying out strikes against groups responsible for the attacks.

"Its scope has been expanded consistently in subsequent administrations," he added. "It is not immediately obvious that drug cartels such as Tren de Aragua would be within the President's AUMF powers, but that might be what 'narco-terrorists' is hinting at."

Questions also remain as to whether Trump complied with the War Powers Resolution, which demands that the president "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities".

Despite some Republicans in Congress reportedly challenging the strikes, the Senate defeated a resolution in October that would have required the Trump administration to seek the approval of Congress before any further attacks.

What do we know about US operations in the region?

Venezuela's government has reacted to the strikes with anger. Its president, Nicolas Maduro, denies American accusations that he is involved with drugs trafficking.

The strikes come amid reports that the US has deployed naval warships to the region in support of anti-narcotics operations against Venezuela.

Using satellite imagery, images from social media, and information from publicly available trackers on vessels, we've identified 14 US military ships in the region.

These include guided missile destroyers and amphibious assault ships.

We also located a number of military planes and drones in Puerto Rico.

Trump also acknowledged in October that he has authorised the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela.

The president - who has long sought to oust Maduro - has authorised a US$50m reward for any information leading to his arrest. The Venezuelan leader claimed victory in last year's elections, widely viewed as rigged by international observers.

Additional reporting by Lucy Gilder

All images and links - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjzw3gplv7o