Venezuela 2025

[Bootstrap]

It’s probable that officers are taught this or at least it’s referenced. Enlisted? never.
There is a book that we’re taught from that contains the basics, we basically memorize the entire book.
And no, it does not contain the code of war or any legal stuff like that. we are taught that in an hour long briefing that we’re half awake for.
I learned more about military combat/law/Geneva conventions when I trained with Marines.
Repeatedly we were trained to violate the laws.

Beside that, there’s no declared war? This current action is under DHS stated terrorists? Fairly untested?
i have no idea and i’m not guessing. esp not based on msm circus reports.

But if there is no declared war ... where is the authority to kill these people? We certainly do not have police jurisdiction.

And what is this accomplishing that the Coast Guard drug interdictions were not? For instance:

https://apnews.com/article/coast-guard- ... 4e1b724064

https://factually.co/fact-checks/milita ... ons-03f7d5

[temporal1]

It’s probable that officers are taught this or at least it’s referenced. Enlisted? never.
There is a book that we’re taught from that contains the basics, we basically memorize the entire book.
And no, it does not contain the code of war or any legal stuff like that. we are taught that in an hour long briefing that we’re half awake for.
I learned more about military combat/law/Geneva conventions when I trained with Marines.
Repeatedly we were trained to violate the laws.

Beside that, there’s no declared war? This current action is under DHS stated terrorists? Fairly untested?
i have no idea and i’m not guessing. esp not based on msm circus reports.

But if there is no declared war ... where is the authority to kill these people? We certainly do not have police jurisdiction.

And what is this accomplishing that the Coast Guard drug interdictions were not?

Military action isn’t confined to declared wars. i learned that hard lesson in Vietnam years.
DHS and terrorism are still new, i’m not sure how courts will look at it. i don’t believe it’s been tested in court.

All this will be tested, is there any doubt about it? i do not share your certainty about any of it.

[Soloist]

Interesting. I just heard a podcast with Frank Rosenblatt, a professor at MC Law and a former U.S. Army Lt. Col and Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army, and Colby Vokey, former Marine Corps Lt. Col and Judge Advocate General.

https://shows.acast.com/60518a52f69aa81 ... eef03ffbf3

They claimed that this material would have been taught before a deployment. If you have time to listen to the podcast, I would be interested in your take.

I would also be interested in your take on this article:

https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/ill ... survivors/

I am sure it would be taught before deployment along with probably at least 50+ other briefings. Each one would be basically mass fed to a room of sailors, marines, army, or whoever and they would be half awake.
When they get over to the deployment, they’ll have whoever is over there tell them how it really is.
I’m telling you though that there is the official policy and the unofficial policy and I learned firsthand what happens to those that follow the official policy.
People who die from suicide aren’t actually suicide sometimes…
My training directly was given to contradict the Geneva conventions on at least three different counts.

Ultimately in deployment, there’s really only one thing that matters… the guy on the left and the guy on the right. I never deployed and I know this, you talked to almost any military person, and they know this.

[temporal1]

“No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
Attributed to Helmuth von Moltke (“The Elder”), 1800-1891

Cartels, drug traffickers, mobs, gangs, etc., are not countries.
Using the word, “war” (as in war against poverty, and such others) doesn’t make poverty a country.

The word shouldn’t have been used that (casual) way. imho

[Szdfan]

“No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
Attributed to Helmuth von Moltke (“The Elder”), 1800-1891

Cartels, drug traffickers, mobs, gangs, etc., are not countries.
Using the word, “war” (as in war against poverty, and such others) doesn’t make poverty a country.

The word shouldn’t have been used that (casual) way. imho

So if “war” is not the right word, maybe “murder” is.

[Bootstrap]

I’m telling you though that there is the official policy and the unofficial policy and I learned firsthand what happens to those that follow the official policy.
People who die from suicide aren’t actually suicide sometimes…
My training directly was given to contradict the Geneva conventions on at least three different counts.

Ultimately in deployment, there’s really only one thing that matters… the guy on the left and the guy on the right. I never deployed and I know this, you talked to almost any military person, and they know this.

I don't know if it would be appropriate to share what kind of orders you were given that contradict the Geneva conventions. If this is something you can share, I would be interested.

There's a catch-22 for the troops: I have certainly heard that bad things happen to people of conscious who witness war crimes. On the other hand, you can also get convicted of a war crime if you follow the order. I'm thinking of Staff Sergeant Michael J. Smith, a dog handler who trained dogs to terrorize prisoners of war. He was following orders, but he was convicted and court martialed anyway, and "just following orders" is not a legal defense. The people who asked him to do this were not prosecuted.

Several other U.S. soldiers were convicted for abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib. Not the senior officers or legal architects of the interrogation program. Accountability stops at the bottom. Which puts troops in a very difficult position. And even if they are court martialed, worse could happen if they disobey illegal orders.

And this administration has been pardoning people for war crimes.

• Lieutenant Clint Lorance was convicted for ordering soldiers to fire on unarmed Afghan civilians. Now pardoned.
• Mathew Golsteyn faced trial for killing a detained suspected Taliban bomb-maker after a battlefield confession. Now pardoned.
• Chief Petty Officer Edward “Eddie” Gallagher was charged with killing a wounded prisoner and posing with a corpse. He was acquitted on most charges but convicted of posing with a body. His rank was restored.

Pete Hegseth lobbied for each of these men. He is pretty clear in interviews that he thinks war crimes should almost never be enforced against American troops. In February, they fired the Judge Advocates General (JAGs) of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force after months of attacks on military lawyers for enforcing the laws of war.

Here's something that scares me: what does this look like if troops are deployed at home, on American soil? Can we really count on the military to refuse illegal orders?

[Bootstrap]

“No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
Attributed to Helmuth von Moltke (“The Elder”), 1800-1891

Cartels, drug traffickers, mobs, gangs, etc., are not countries.
Using the word, “war” (as in war against poverty, and such others) doesn’t make poverty a country.

The word shouldn’t have been used that (casual) way. imho

So if “war” is not the right word, maybe “murder” is.

We can quibble about what we call this - war? counterterrorism? AUMF? whatever ... Is there some label that makes it OK to kill people like this?

If these are not wars between countries, there’s no declared war, no clear armed conflict, no battlefield, and no due process, is there some magical label that removes all moral guilt?

Is this kind of killing acceptable? Let's stop "wrangling over words".

[temporal1]

“No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
Attributed to Helmuth von Moltke (“The Elder”), 1800-1891

Cartels, drug traffickers, mobs, gangs, etc., are not countries.
Using the word, “war” (as in war against poverty, and such others) doesn’t make poverty a country.

The word shouldn’t have been used that (casual) way. imho

So if “war” is not the right word, maybe “murder” is.

Again, not either/or.
i call it killing, atrocity, horrible, unthinkable, i rarely use the word, “war”.

i’m aware there are legal terms, military terms, etc., that determine life+death for a lot of people.

i’m also aware of murderers who kill without warning, kill unarmed unwarned innocents, these are specially cowardly and heinous.

There is gov funded for-profit abortion, which eclipses all these other forms of killing put together.
i would call abortion ALL OF THE ABOVE and worse.

Does the unborn/newborn care whether they’re murdered on a jungle floor, or in a sterile clinic, left in a clean bucket for medical waste disposal? i seriously doubt it.

Our society methodically grooms the former is evil, the latter desirable.
https://nrlc.org/nrlnewstoday/2025/12/n ... uperpower/

Isn’t that something? Children’s books (plural). Evidently, many know nothing about millstones.

[temporal1]

quibble

and, just like that, it’s quibbling.

- - - - - - -

many today would have never survived the Vietnam years.
even being a young girl, not in the draft, not enlisted, or other. while being told on a regular basis, “this is not a declared war”.

i’m tellin ya. to a lot of us we couldn’t wrap our heads around that one. it seemed ever bit a war to us.

[Soloist]

I don't know if it would be appropriate to share what kind of orders you were given that contradict the Geneva conventions. If this is something you can share, I would be interested.

All I can legally say is it was normal training and we were taught that this is the correct practice.
Parts of my training were need to know and its not legal for me to speak to them in specifics. You could likely find them but I couldn't confirm them.

There's a catch-22 for the troops: I have certainly heard that bad things happen to people of conscious who witness war crimes. On the other hand, you can also get convicted of a war crime if you follow the order. I'm thinking of Staff Sergeant Michael J. Smith, a dog handler who trained dogs to terrorize prisoners of war. He was following orders, but he was convicted and court martialed anyway, and "just following orders" is not a legal defense. The people who asked him to do this were not prosecuted.

and one of my instructors was filmed swinging a body part by CNN and CNN was paid off to not show the film.

Several other U.S. soldiers were convicted for abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib. Not the senior officers or legal architects of the interrogation program. Accountability stops at the bottom. Which puts troops in a very difficult position. And even if they are court martialed, worse could happen if they disobey illegal orders.

Paper trails on these sort of orders only happen if someone refuses.


One example I can give was how it was normal practice to take away our "self defense" rifle and giving us an M16 which put us in violation of the Geneva conventions.

The number of stories I was told to justify the training, the changing of who was lawful combatant, on and on.

I was given considerable pressure to lie to an infection control officer to make my clinic look better and what happened because I refused to lie was pretty bad but nothing compared to what happens on occasion in the sandbox.