[Red Steel]

Interesting comments by FReeper David from another thread:

- - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:49:22 PM · 468 of 578
LucyT to David; Bikkuri; GregNH; Fantasywriter; warsaw44; ColdOne; wintertime; Fred Nerks; null and void; ...

The release this morning of the claim letter from the 0sama Bin Laden heirs may well operate to bring the issue back to the table.

International Law requires that to avoid prosecution and Criminal Liability, the Seals who carried out the mission were required to have been acting on lawful orders and were further obligated, as were their superior officers, to challenge orders which were not lawful.

Lawful orders among other things require issue by the Commander in Chief.

So if these guys were relying on orders from 0bama and he is not a NBC, the orders were not lawful and they have a criminal murder problem (maybe).

There is an inside story out there that the Joint Chief's required Biden to sign the orders on the grounds that he is Acting President under the 20th Amendment.

. . . . Excerpted. - Read more at # 449.

Thanks, David.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies

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

[wintertime]

There is an inside story out there that the Joint Chief's required Biden to sign the orders on the grounds that he is Acting President under the 20th Amendment.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If true then our highest military officers are deliberately overlooking fraud, forgery, identity theft, and usurpation. When did **that** become part of the military code of honor?

I never thought I would see the day that a third world banana republic, Honoduras, would have highest military with more honor and professionalism than our own. It is indeed a sad day.

[reagandemocrat]

wow. Explains the “war-room picture”

[JoeA]

And that is exactly why Lt. Col Lakin refused his orders, on the grounds that he could face criminal prosecution for accepting unlawful orders.

What information do you have that Biden signed the orders?