Adm. Alvin Holsey resigned over Hegseth's Venezuela boat strike orders

@RB 60 when you read the above and what is taught, who do you think they are speaking to in the words i made larger to help you identify them?

Yes this is a test if you can comprehend what you read above as it is CRYSTAL clear, who they are speaking to.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
Examples of Illegal Orders
  • Targeting civilians or non-combatants.
  • Abusing prisoners or detainees.
  • Falsifying official documents.
  • Engaging in unauthorized domestic law enforcement.
Click to expand...
And even more specifically the Code of Conduct uses as it example an enemy ship destroyed at sea.

----------


U.S. Military Code of Conduct
  • personnel who are disabled and no longer a threat
  • and survivors of maritime warfare who are “out of combat” due to ship destruction



  • Enemy personnel in the water from a destroyed vessel are considered hors de combat (out of the fight)
  • They may not be intentionally attacked unless they take hostile action or present a threat
  • There is a duty to render assistance if feasible, consistent with mission requirements


These rules come primarily from:


  1. Law of Armed Conflict
    (also called the Law of War — the core legal standard the U.S. military must follow)
  2. DoD Directive 2311.01
    which makes compliance with the Law of War mandatory for the U.S. military.
  3. Geneva Conventions
    which the U.S. adheres to and trains under as part of LOAC.
  4. U.S. Navy Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations
    which does explicitly address people in the water after a ship is destroyed.

-------------

RB read the above and his head spins as he simply cannot comprehend what it means and how that Admiral had any right to decide he would not follow an order he believed was an illegal one.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump downgrades anything he is involved with.
Click to expand...
TDS.
Nordberg said:
He is a horrible person.
Click to expand...
TDS
Nordberg said:
He wants a war.
Click to expand...
DEMOCRATS want a war.
Nordberg said:
He said Maduro's days are numbered.
Click to expand...
I agree. Dictators are almost always rejected by their subjects.
Nordberg said:
The Trumpys will have to back this war.
Click to expand...
What war?
Nordberg said:
Trump makes their decisions.
Click to expand...
Did you know Trump is Commander in Chief of the military, Sybil?
 
Guno צְבִי said:
Article 90, which covers the rules over "Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer," explicitly prohibits orders that "without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs."

They are also bound to follow international agreements to which the U.S. is a signatory.


The International Committee of the Red Cross, which protects victims under the rules of the Geneva Convention, also states that armed service members are liable for criminal responsibility "if the subordinate knew that the act ordered was unlawful or should have known because of the manifestly unlawful nature of the act ordered."

Unlawful orders have come up many times in U.S. military courts over the decades, with prosecutors pushing back against the "Nuremberg defense," a reference to the Nuremberg trials after World War II, in which several Nazis unsuccessfully defended their actions by claiming they they were following orders from their superiors.

In 1969 during the Vietnam War, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals ruled against a soldier who was convicted of killing a Vietnamese man and claimed that he was following orders.

War Crime: Examples include harming civilians, torturing detainees, or falsifying records.

abcnews.go.com

What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders

The call from Democratic veterans in Congress highlights the federal law that dictates the conduct of members of the military.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...
Keep throwing spaghetti at the walls, Gunky. It's not done yet.

No Geneva convention applies to pirates or smugglers.
Not an act of war.
No falsified records.
 
QP! said:
No one can comprehend your stupidity so finally we agree upon something.

Just as this soldier did, just as they teach in military academy, EACH AND EVERY service member must make THEIR OWN determination, and if they need to consult a JAG or other lawyers they can, and if they BELIEVE an order is an illegal one, they must not follow it.

RB i know you have no ability to read the below and comprehend it but see if someone will help you as this is directly from what is taught in Military Academy..


Core Principles Taught at Military Academies​



  • Obligation to disobey unlawful orders
    • Following an illegal order is itself a crime
    • “I was just following orders” is not a legal defense
  • Individual criminal responsibility
    • Service members are personally accountable under:
      • Military law (e.g., UCMJ)
      • Domestic criminal law
      • International humanitarian law (Law of Armed Conflict)
  • Manifestly unlawful orders standard
    • You are expected to refuse orders that are clearly illegal on their face, such as:
      • Killing wounded or surrendering enemies
      • Targeting civilians or civilian objects
      • Torture or cruel treatment
      • Rape, looting, or collective punishment
  • Orders you must question
    • Orders that:
      • Violate Rules of Engagement (ROE)
      • Conflict with the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)
      • Seem outside the issuing commander’s authority
Click to expand...
What illegal order, Kewpie?
 
Nordberg said:
I suppose Trump would gladly accept Venezuela blowing up boats around Florida and claim they are all drug boats. Hey it's all good. We blow up boats on their shore, they blow up boats on our shore.
Click to expand...
So you are still trying to claim they were fishing at 60mph loaded with extra barrels of fuel and bales of cocaine up to the gunwales.
 
QP! said:
And even more specifically the Code of Conduct uses as it example an enemy ship destroyed at sea.

----------


U.S. Military Code of Conduct
  • personnel who are disabled and no longer a threat
  • and survivors of maritime warfare who are “out of combat” due to ship destruction



  • Enemy personnel in the water from a destroyed vessel are considered hors de combat (out of the fight)
  • They may not be intentionally attacked unless they take hostile action or present a threat
  • There is a duty to render assistance if feasible, consistent with mission requirements


These rules come primarily from:


  1. Law of Armed Conflict
    (also called the Law of War — the core legal standard the U.S. military must follow)
  2. DoD Directive 2311.01
    which makes compliance with the Law of War mandatory for the U.S. military.
  3. Geneva Conventions
    which the U.S. adheres to and trains under as part of LOAC.
  4. U.S. Navy Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations
    which does explicitly address people in the water after a ship is destroyed.

-------------

RB read the above and his head spins as he simply cannot comprehend what it means and how that Admiral had any right to decide he would not follow an order he believed was an illegal one.
Click to expand...

So, any recruit who thinks an order is illegal can defy it?
 
pee pee thinks a troop can make the decision on his own whether an order is illegal or not, even during the duress of war.
He must think a JAG will be right there to assist him/her in his decision? Stupid. Really stupid.
Anyway,
Me? I haven't decided what to think of it yet. I'll wait until the details are released if they are. But they were smuggling poison into this country and getting rich doing it. So don't look for me to go out and protest, or set up a Go-Fund-Me memorial. Just getting rid of them? Or pick them up while watching all the evidence sink to the bottom of the sea. What charges without evidence, and at what expense? So......?
 
RB 60 said:
So, any recruit who thinks an order is illegal can defy it?
Click to expand...
RB, it is impossible to say this to you in a way you can comprehend so no answer can help you.

I will repeat the below and make certain key words REALLY BIG, to help you focus, as they answer your question.

But at the same time if i could bet every penny i had on you not understanding it, i would make that bet in a heart beat as we know you still will not understand it after reading the BIG words again.


Core Principles Taught at Military Academies​



  • Obligation to disobey unlawful orders
    • Following an illegal order is itself a crime
    • “I was just following orders” is not a legal defense
  • Individual criminal responsibility
    • Service members are personally accountable under:
      • Military law (e.g., UCMJ)
      • Domestic criminal law
      • International humanitarian law (Law of Armed Conflict)
  • Manifestly unlawful orders standard
    • You are expected to refuse orders that are clearly illegal on their face, such as:
      • Killing wounded or surrendering enemies
      • Targeting civilians or civilian objects
      • Torture or cruel treatment
      • Rape, looting, or collective punishment
  • Orders you must question
    • Orders that:
      • Violate Rules of Engagement (ROE)
      • Conflict with the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)
      • Seem outside the issuing commander’s authority

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So re read your question RB and then read the words (focus on "YOU" and "I") and ask yourself who the above Code of Conduct is referring to and it will answer your question. You just will not understand it as the poorly educated.
 
RB 60 said:
pee pee thinks a troop can make the decision on his own whether an order is illegal or not, even during the duress of war.
He must think a JAG will be right there to assist him/her in his decision? Stupid. Really stupid.
Anyway,
Me? I haven't decided what to think of it yet. I'll wait until the details are released if they are. But they were smuggling poison into this country and getting rich doing it. So don't look for me to go out and protest, or set up a Go-Fund-Me memorial. Just getting rid of them? Or pick them up while watching all the evidence sink to the bottom of the sea. What charges without evidence, and at what expense? So......?
Click to expand...
LIE.

In your stupidity you think that but i am only repeating what is in the Code of Conduct. What they REQUIRE all troops consider and do and let them know they can be jailed ("I was just following orders"... does not work) if they do not do it.

You then reply with your idiocy.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
In December 2025, a claim (archived) circulated online that Admiral Alvin Holsey resigned as the head of the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) because of Pete Hegseth's Venezuelan boat strike orders.

Since September 2025, the Trump administration and the Pentagon have announced at least 21 strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats from Venezuela and the surrounding area, Axios reported, killing at least 82 people as of Dec. 1, 2025.

SOUTHCOM, the unified combatant command that covers Central and South America and the Caribbean, announced (archived) on Oct. 16, 2025, that Holsey, the force's commander, would retire on Dec. 12.

0cb1d9e1c43a812225c72877dcaeb09a


news.yahoo.com

Unpacking claim Adm. Alvin Holsey resigned over Hegseth's Venezuela boat strike orders

Holsey will retire from the Navy on Dec. 12, 2025, after a little more than a year leading the U.S. Southern Command.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
After Trump leaves office, I would like to see The Hague bring war crime charges against Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration and military officers who went along with these boat strike orders?!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top