re: Patel says arrests are coming soon.

This post is still somehow available

NC_Tigah intellectually mogging SFP

Some things never change

quote:

---

Discussing lawful orders has no relevance to a discussion about following only lawful orders?

---

Discussing lawful orders has no relevance when all orders issued were lawful orders. I will say again, Mark Kelly does not want this brought to a court martial panel, specifically for that reason.

quote:

---

to create digressions around irrelevant discussion points?

---

The fact that no unlawful, illegal orders were issued is now an "irrelevant discussion point"?

quote:

---

The fact that no unlawful, illegal orders were issued is now an "irrelevant discussion point"?

---

Yes.

It has no relevance to the general comments made. You're trying to manufacture a point to create a partisan take when none of that applies to the comments directly.

As I said earlier

quote:

---

my focus is on the words, not the partisan interpretation.

---

Your focus is NOT on the words.

I mean I guess that guy went with the more libertarian angle on the racism

quote:

---

I’m not going to subsidize your laziness

---

this isn’t your first month here. It is standard for someone making a claim to provide link.

quote:

---

Your focus is NOT on the words.

---

Oh my

No, SFP, we are each focused on the words in the law.

However, your focus is on words that describe something which never happened.

My focus is on words that describe something that did happen. That's the difference.

Both are elements of the law. One did not occur, the other did.

There were no unlawful orders issued.
On the other hand, there was an interference with the order and discipline of the military through the intimation that unlawful orders were being issued, and the pursuant cautionary that following such orders (even though they had not occurred) could lead to court martial.

quote:

---

Think about what you just said

---

Instead, you should think about what I just said.

What was the purpose of the "public service announcement"?

You would, incredibly, posit the purpose was to inform military members of something they already knew. That clearly was not the purpose. You know that. I know that. Everyone who watched the PSA knows that.

The purpose was to instill insecurity in servicemen who were following legal orders. That purpose translates to a disruption of "order and discipline" in the military.

For a civilian, such a purpose might fall within first amendment rights. But for someone subject to the UMCJ, it is a different matter.

Decatur claims Kelly was/is not subject to the UMCJ. That is literally the only argument that could save Kelly if he got pulled back to active duty. It's crystal clear you don't understand that, or refuse to admit that you do.