Let's talk about Senators calling it like they see it on the boats.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there internet people. It's
Belle again.
So, today we're going to talk about
senators calling it like they see it on
the boats.
We have to set the scene real quick to
put it into DC context.
For quite a while now, people in
Congress have been in an uproar over the
administration's response to a group of
veterans making a video that parallels
DoD training on the duty to disobey
unlawful orders.
We've made a number of videos explaining
the practical application of the laws
governing this and discussed it in
depth. In DC, even some Republicans were
bothered by the reactions from the White
House.
Senator Mark Kelly, who was one of the
veterans in the video, described the
chain of events and said, quote, "I said
something very simple and
non-controversial,
and Donald Trump said I should be
hanged, executed, prosecuted.
Pete Hegseth said that I should be court
marshaled. How ridiculous is this? We
say follow the law and this is their
response. These are not serious people.
Senator Kelly went on to reiterate that
quote, "Not only do they not have to
follow them, they are legally required
not to follow."
The immediate response from the White
House to the video was calls of treason.
Then when it was discovered that the
duty to disobey is something the
military routinely trains on and the
duty is literally enshrined in the oath
of enlistment. The talking point was
that it was an unnecessary video because
the administration hadn't given an
unlawful order.
That's not how military training works.
You don't start to train after a
situation arises. You start before.
Regardless of public comments, even
congressional Republicans who are vets
know this is the case. So, there was
unease on Capitol Hill. Then the report
about the September 2nd boat strike came
out with the allegation that US forces
struck a boat a second time once the
opposition was out of action.
Congressional leaders are now using the
term that is normally unspeakable in
politics concerning US troops.
Senator Tim Kaine said, quote, "If that
reporting is true, it's a clear
violation of the DoD's own laws of war
as well as international laws about the
way you treat people who are in that
circumstance."
And so this rises to the level of a war
crime if it's true.
He and a bunch of other high-profile
Democrats have said similar things, but
they're Democrats, so that's going to be
blown off. But then we have, quote, if
it was as if the article said that is a
violation of the law of war. That's
Republican Representative Don Bacon.
Then there's quote, "If that occurred,
that would be very serious." And I agree
that would be an illegal act. That's
Republican Mike Turner. There's a
bipartisan feeling that a war crime may
have been committed. As I said earlier,
if they were aware of the survivors and
launched a second strike, I'm not sure
how it could be anything else. As you
change the other variables, it just
changes which crime it looks like
happened. Trumpian talking points aren't
going to end this discussion. It'll go
on now until there's some kind of
clarification as to the chain of events
and what exactly occurred.
Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have
a good day.