Drug running is arguably an illegal act that is “dangerous to human life”, but I have seen no evidence that the intent is to affect government policy or to intimidate the civilian population.
Smuggling cigarettes into New York City would arguably meet the definition of an illegal act that is “dangerous to human life”, but the intent is make money by avoiding local taxes. Drug running appears to have a similar motive.
As used in this chapter—
(1)the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Officers are free to resign if they disagree with the current policy. Encouraging servicemen to ignore illegal orders means they could face prosecution for mutiny and possible conviction if a court rules that the orders were valid.
Congress should act to clarify the situation, but I doubt that will happen.
when OBL was in his cave planning his attack if we had killed him it would have bee preventing an incursion. Would you have argued against that too… I mean since he wasn’t at the shore?
find any statement I have made in support of the action. You won’t find one. Just because I acknowledge an argument is valid does not mean I agree with it. As far as courts go, the courts have no authority to replace the President judgement with their own, and even less so in this instance since they have no war powers. The check here will have to come from the Congress.
Think they could have traveled to the US without a fuel stop? Or maybe - crazy, i know - We could have interdicted them at a fuel stop. Or with another boat.
If they are illegal orders then there will be no action against those refusing to carry them out.
All Kelly did was remind service personnel that no one has to follow illegal orders. He was not saying do not follow orders, he was not saying procrastinate when given an order.
Lets be honest here, serving military have brains and capable of critical thinking.
Anyone who is using Kellys remarks to not follow orders I will bet anything already have behavioural issues or issues wity authority that have been documented.