Civil liberties thread

[supesalemgr2]

While the comments by Kelly and his colleagues were disgusting they were well within their rights. The statements themselves were designed to gain attention and they did. They said service members did not have to obey "ILLEGAL" orders - DUHH? The Trump administration should have just pointed out how manipulative the pitch was .

[neoplacebo]

While the comments by Kelly and his colleagues were disgusting they were well within their rights. The statements themselves were designed to gain attention and they did. They said service members did not have to obey "ILLEGAL" orders - DUHH? The Trump administration should have just pointed out how manipulative the pitch was .

It's obvious you're a gullible fool. Have yoiu ever been in the US military? One of the first things they tell you after sweraring you in is that you have a DUTY to not follow illegal orders. They don't tell you how to determine if an ofder is illeage; they leave it up to you. Why do you think that orders issued by military officers to their subordinates that order them to kill innocent people should not be questioned? Are you a Nazi? I'm gonna answer that for you....you ARE a Nazi, or at least a partisan. Join up. Gert educated. Never mind; they'd never take you.

[neoplacebo]

Now cue the cat pan to post gibberish designed to obscure facts and common sense.

[O Really]

Just because some clown thinks they can "order" doesn't mean it's a lawful order. One would think anybody who's so astute about what's ILLEGAL would have read about the Nuremburg trials or the Mai Lai massacre aftermath.

And it's not just a potential that many in the US military will encounter unlawful orders - it's a regular occurrence, originating from the Secretary of Defense*. For instance unlawful orders include targeting or intentionally harming civilians; torturing or abusing detainees - examples abound.

[supesalemgr2]

While the comments by Kelly and his colleagues were disgusting they were well within their rights. The statements themselves were designed to gain attention and they did. They said service members did not have to obey "ILLEGAL" orders - DUHH? The Trump administration should have just pointed out how manipulative the pitch was .

It's obvious you're a gullible fool. Have yoiu ever been in the US military? One of the first things they tell you after sweraring you in is that you have a DUTY to not follow illegal orders. They don't tell you how to determine if an ofder is illeage; they leave it up to you. Why do you think that orders issued by military officers to their subordinates that order them to kill innocent people should not be questioned? Are you a Nazi? I'm gonna answer that for you....you ARE a Nazi, or at least a partisan. Join up. Gert educated. Never mind; they'd never take you.

My post obviously went over your head. I was confirming Kelly and his colleagues were clever. They said service members did not have to follow "illegal" orders.

[Anonymous too]

Kelly breaks with Biden over 'dumb' decision on immigration

“I’ve spent a lot of time on our southern border, and let me just say it’s a mess. It’s a chaos. It’s crisis after crisis," Kelly said. "I worked in Washington to bring more Border Patrol agents to the state of Arizona.

“I’ve been strong on border security. And I’ve stood up to Democrats when they’re wrong on this issue — including the president,” Kelly continued.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kelly-breaks ... 16077.html

[O Really]

My post obviously went over your head. I was confirming Kelly and his colleagues were clever. They said service members did not have to follow "illegal" orders.

Why was that "clever"? Sure, the comments were meant to draw public attention to a real risk of the DoD continuing to issue unlawful orders. Is that a bad thing, or should that be all covered up. I'll bet Michael Calley would have loved to have had some MAGA sanitization.

[supesalemgr2]

My post obviously went over your head. I was confirming Kelly and his colleagues were clever. They said service members did not have to follow "illegal" orders.

Why was that "clever"? Sure, the comments were meant to draw public attention to a real risk of the DoD continuing to issue unlawful orders. Is that a bad thing, or should that be all covered up. I'll bet Michael Calley would have loved to have had some MAGA sanitization.

"clever" in my context was it was an astute political move. You guys seem to be having some difficulty understanding what they said was perfectly fine in the world of politics. I just found them disgusting which was the intent.

[O Really]

Somebody, probably toward the top of the DoD feeding chain, told some fighter pilots "there's some boats leaving out of Venezuela - we don't have any real evidence that they're carry illegal drugs, and no reason to believe they're headed for the US, but they might be. The guys on the boat are civilians, but they might be criminals; we don't know that for sure. Anyway, we need to put on a show of force so we want you to blow these boats up without warning. We don't want anybody rescued, and we don't want any evidence left from the boat in case there's nothing illegal on it. But have fun."

So far, they've killed about 130 civilians, none of whom have been linked with court-quality evidence to illegal drug trade. Quite a few knowledgeable people have opined that this is clearly a violation of international law.

[neoplacebo]

While the comments by Kelly and his colleagues were disgusting they were well within their rights. The statements themselves were designed to gain attention and they did. They said service members did not have to obey "ILLEGAL" orders - DUHH? The Trump administration should have just pointed out how manipulative the pitch was .

It's obvious you're a gullible fool. Have yoiu ever been in the US military? One of the first things they tell you after sweraring you in is that you have a DUTY to not follow illegal orders. They don't tell you how to determine if an ofder is illeage; they leave it up to you. Why do you think that orders issued by military officers to their subordinates that order them to kill innocent people should not be questioned? Are you a Nazi? I'm gonna answer that for you....you ARE a Nazi, or at least a partisan. Join up. Gert educated. Never mind; they'd never take you.

My post obviously went over your head. I was confirming Kelly and his colleagues were clever. They said service members did not have to follow "illegal" orders.

My point obviously went over your head. All I'm saying is that what was said in the video that the cultists freaked out over is nothing more than explicitly stating existing policy. And it was emphasized in the context of Pentagon Pete blasting little boats with a handful of people in them, allegedly because of drug trafficking. And the fact that it was discovered that two boat people survived the initial stomp and Pete went back and stomped them again. I think Captain Kelly, having been a fighter pilot, has a very good perspective on the matter. Again, nothing said in that video was anything other than what existing military policy has been for decades. But trump and his cult freaked out about it. You followed right along with them. Pathetic.

[neoplacebo]

The fool is now conspiring with Pentagon Pete to stir things up with Iran. Even trump's buddy Nuttyahoo as warned him against it. Hilarious. the cult gushes in awe in hopes of a Christian crusade again. Nutjobs sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Washed in the Blood" outside the White House construction site.

[Vrede too]

Somebody, probably toward the top of the DoD feeding chain, told some fighter pilots "there's some boats leaving out of Venezuela - we don't have any real evidence that they're carry illegal drugs, and no reason to believe they're headed for the US, but they might be. The guys on the boat are civilians, but they might be criminals; we don't know that for sure. Anyway, we need to put on a show of force so we want you to blow these boats up without warning. We don't want anybody rescued, and we don't want any evidence left from the boat in case there's nothing illegal on it. But have fun."

So far, they've killed about 130 civilians, none of whom have been linked with court-quality evidence to illegal drug trade. Quite a few knowledgeable people have opined that this is clearly a violation of international law.

It was a test to see whether Americans would tolerate the even more illegal deposing of a sovereign leader. We did and it happened.


MAGA despises the 1A:

A reporter in Nashville has been covering ICE arrests in her community. Then she was detained herself

[Vrede too]

George Soros' foundation pledges $300M to defend civil liberties, critics point to timing



The Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, announced this week that it’s pledging $300 million toward initiatives it says will defend democratic rights and advance economic security over the next five years.


George Soros' foundation PLEDGES $300M to defend civil liberties, critics point to timing

This is both a moral and material response to a time when rights and freedoms are being rolled back across the country, and far too many people cannot afford the basics even though we live in the wealthiest country in the world,” said Laleh Ispahani, managing director for the U.S. at Open Society, in a press release.

The initiative is structured across two core pillars. Defending civil liberties and the rule of law and expanding civil rights and creating economic opportunity. The funding serves as the first major U.S.-focused initiative approved under the leadership of Alex Soros, George's son.

Democratic governments must create opportunity for all Americans—not just in principle, but in their daily lives. Guaranteed rights and freedoms are just as critical as broad economic prosperity and are the strongest defense we have against a closed society,” Alex Soros said in that press release.

GoAlexGo!

The new commitment comes as President Donald Trump’s allies in Congress have asked the IRS and DOJ to investigate nonprofits they accuse of supporting domestic terrorism, illegal immigration, or far-left groups.

... OSF told the Associated Press that, in the past year, it’s provided grants to organizations working to defend the rule of law and push back on policies that try and deter parts of the population from participating in public life. But (Seamus, Executive Director of the Government Accountability Institute) Bruner believes that defending democracy is a language being used to mask what OSF is up to. Pointing to the timing of this announcement.

When the Soros network and the other dark money networks say that they're defending democracy or doing some sort of civil rights activity, that can also translate into protest actions. So, I wouldn't be surprised if we have more of this ‘No Kings’ stuff going into the midterms,” said Bruner.

Damn straight, deal with it. Our Constitution is sacred.

[Vrede too]

Free speech? The case of a 3rd grader's 'come and take it' gun hat

The hat a Michigan third grader wore for her school's "Great Kindness Challenge" in 2022 featured an image of an AR-style rifle and the phrase "come and take it."

Irony.

... Officials at Robert Kerr Elementary School in Durand, Michigan, said the hat's message could be disruptive, particularly for students who had transferred to the district after a school shooting 50 miles away in 2021, the deadliest in the state's history.

The Supreme Court on June 8 declined to review lower court rulings that the school did not violate the student's free speech rights by prohibiting the hat.

The court likewise passed up a chance last year to decide whether a Massachusetts school erred by banning a T-shirt saying "There are only two genders."

Both cases turned on a landmark 1969 case protecting students' First Amendment rights as long as their speech isn't too disruptive. In that case, the Supreme Court said a Des Moines high school could not prevent students from wearing black armbands in support of an end to the war in Vietnam.

I wore one in jr high. I got hassled in the hallway, but classes were not disrupted.

In 2007, by contrast, the high court said a student in Alaska did not have a First Amendment right to hold up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

... Lawyers for the school said that in addition to the concerns about the 2021 school shooting, the school's dress code prohibits clothes with violent themes.

Of course.

Both the district court and the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the student....

[Vrede too]

'It's a pretext': American faces a felony charge for wiping his phone data during an airport check

[Vrede too]

MAGA lies, always

Trump vowed to 'bring free speech back.' Judges in 75 cases ruled that he has stifled it



x 75

[Vrede too]

MAGA despises the 1A:

Trump criticism leads to rare criminal charges for Air Force officer who called for impeachment

A US airman who was arrested twice, once on the steps of the US Capitol while calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, was officially criminally charged Monday for his comments, according to a charging document his attorney shared with CNN.

Maj. Jason Watson faces the following charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to the document: three violations of Article 88 for alleged "contemptuous" remarks about Trump, five violations of Article 92 for allegedly disobeying orders and two violations of Article 133 for alleged conduct unbecoming an officer.

The rare Article 88 charges are connected to the Air Force officer's June interview with the Defenders of our Republic Substack newsletter, his July 1 protest in uniform at the US Capitol, and an August 17 CNN interview....

The lifelong cowardly "bone spurs" Chickenhawk in Chief sure has thin skin.

"Not only is (Trump) a failure as president, he is flagrantly violating the Constitution, breaking the law, engaged in rampant corruption, and is killing Americans," Watson told CNN's Erin Burnett during the interview. "And that is unacceptable to me."

... Mutimer (Watson's attorney) said, "He truly believes in everything about our constitution and what it represents, and the oath that he swore, and he stands by the fact that he did this so others wouldn't have to, and to share that to anyone who's scared and feels alone."

The founder of the organization that organized the protest in July, Jessica Denson of the Removal Coalition, told CNN at the time that Watson was aware of the risks of what he was doing and had reached out to them via email.

"We started having conversations and took this desire that he had to come out very seriously and thought about the best way to make his sacrifice worth it," Denson said.

HERO!

Military courts-martial leading to "contempt of officials" charges are rare — a CNN review only identified two such convictions that have occurred since the modern Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted in 1951.

In 1965, an Army lieutenant was convicted of the charge after he participated in an off-base protest against the Vietnam War in El Paso, Texas. Lt. Henry Howe was sentenced to a dismissal from the service — the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge for an officer — and a year in the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ultimately granted parole to Howe, ending his sentence early.

The most recent Article 88 conviction came in 2021, when former Marine Corps Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller pleaded guilty to contempt of officials and other charges linked to a series of social media videos he published criticizing the Biden administration's handling of the US military's withdrawal from Afghanistan. Scheller, who was confined to the brig for a period of time before his trial, was sentenced to a $5,000 pay forfeiture and resigned from the Marine Corps sans-pension as part of a plea agreement.

The Trump administration has since appointed Scheller to serve as a senior adviser to the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness.

Disgusting irony.

... Frank Rosenblatt, a retired Army judge advocate and associate law professor at Mississippi Christian University, said to CNN that the standard for "contemptuous" words is "less than precise" in guidance provided to military judges and panel members (similar to jurors).

Rosenblatt said that "contemptuous" remarks under Article 88 must be "insulting, rude, and disdainful conduct, or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another a quality of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness."

He suggested that a pretrial hearing known as an Article 32 proceeding may be required to assess whether Watson's remarks instead "are true or are fair criticisms" of the president....

Ooo, I hope that's a public hearing.

[neoplacebo]

What he did would have been ok if he hadn't worn his uniform while doing it. But it is rare for this charge to be made. Probably because it's rare for an active duty member to make a partisan statement in uniform. I knew not to do it. And I wasn't an officer. He'd have gotten more attention if he'd don it naked. And faced a lesser penalty. ok