The actual Impeachment process:

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

No citation mein führer? He doesn't know the law stupid. Doesn't take the advice of the National Security Council, and you expect him to know what he's doing?

Now I'm not so sure you served. And so close to the eleventh hour of the eleven day of the eleventh month. Shame on you. Traitor. What did Lindsey Graham say about his policy?

cite this





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Stormer







have a nice day!

[eccieuser9500]

Wikipedia again?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Wikipedia again?

why not? you have a better source? go edit The Lord Emperor Donald, Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse's page. edit it to say "Ecky9.5k says Donnie is poopy dicknose and Jimmy Wales sucks dick"

anyone can edit Wikipedia, right?? even you. right??

so edit it.


BAHHHAAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


if you double click the "like" button real fast it will double like it!

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

cite this





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Stormer







have a nice day!

Memo to Trump: The military will not follow illegal orders

Back in the campaign, when then-candidate Donald Trump was still promising to torture terrorists and kill their wives and children, he insisted the generals would do whatever he told them. (“They won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me,” he said in a debate. “I’m a leader, I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”) Wrong!


Military commanders will also, according to the law of war, determine as best as they are able, with the advice of a fleet of lawyers, whether a preemptive strike is justified by military necessity and is proportional. (They are also obligated to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to avoid causing unnecessary suffering.) Our military men and women — whether the lowliest private or the head of U.S. Strategic Command — receive training in the law of armed conflict and are warned of the consequences if they carry out an illegal order (e.g., burn a village of civilians who pose no threat).

By Jennifer Rubin

Law of Armed Conflict

4 Basic Principles

(1) Distinction – “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48] The only legitimate object of attack in an armed conflict is military personnel or property. This does not mean that civilians cannot be legally harmed or killed under the law only that civilians and civilian property should not be the object or the purpose of the attack. **Protects non-combatants **

(2) Proportionality – “Loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.” [U.S. Army Field Manual FM27-10: Law of Land Warfare]. The key here is the word incidental, meaning outside of the military target. This means that when considering a target the damage to civilians and their property cannot be excessive in relation to the military advantage gained. Proportionality is not a requirement if the target is purely military. This principle brings with it an obligation to consider all options when making targeting decisions: verify the target, timing (is there a time when fewer civilians will be around?), weapons used, warnings and evacuations for civilian populations. **Protects Non-combatants**

(3) Military Necessity – “…[E]very injury done to the enemy, even though permitted by the rules, is excusable only so far as it is absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is criminal.” – Napoleon [Solis, Law of Armed Conflict p 258]. The principal of military necessity prohibits things such as wounding or permanently injuring an opponent except during the fight, torture to exact confessions and other activities simply used to inflict additional damage on the enemy that does not further the military objective. The Liber Code defines the prohibited activity as, “in general, … any act of hostility that make the return to peace unnecessarily difficult. **Protects Combatants**

(4) Unnecessary Suffering – “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” [Additional Protocol I, Article 35.2] **Protects Combatants**

* * * *

Sources for the Four Basic Principles:

• DISTINCTION:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Article 48. See Also Commentary.

• PROPORTIONALITY:

U.S. Army Field Manual FM27-10: Law of Land Warfare (July 1956), Page 5, Paragraph 41.

• MILITARY NECESSITY:

The Law of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law in War, by Gary D. Solis, Cambridge University Press; 1st Edition (February 15, 2010), Page 258.

• UNNECESSARY SUFFERING:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Article 35.2. See also Commentary.


































But you knew that.

Right?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Memo to Trump: The military will not follow illegal orders

By Jennifer Rubin

Law of Armed Conflict

4 Basic Principles

(1) Distinction – “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48] The only legitimate object of attack in an armed conflict is military personnel or property. This does not mean that civilians cannot be legally harmed or killed under the law only that civilians and civilian property should not be the object or the purpose of the attack. **Protects non-combatants **

(2) Proportionality – “Loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.” [U.S. Army Field Manual FM27-10: Law of Land Warfare]. The key here is the word incidental, meaning outside of the military target. This means that when considering a target the damage to civilians and their property cannot be excessive in relation to the military advantage gained. Proportionality is not a requirement if the target is purely military. This principle brings with it an obligation to consider all options when making targeting decisions: verify the target, timing (is there a time when fewer civilians will be around?), weapons used, warnings and evacuations for civilian populations. **Protects Non-combatants**

(3) Military Necessity – “…[E]very injury done to the enemy, even though permitted by the rules, is excusable only so far as it is absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is criminal.” – Napoleon [Solis, Law of Armed Conflict p 258]. The principal of military necessity prohibits things such as wounding or permanently injuring an opponent except during the fight, torture to exact confessions and other activities simply used to inflict additional damage on the enemy that does not further the military objective. The Liber Code defines the prohibited activity as, “in general, … any act of hostility that make the return to peace unnecessarily difficult. **Protects Combatants**

(4) Unnecessary Suffering – “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” [Additional Protocol I, Article 35.2] **Protects Combatants**

* * * *

Sources for the Four Basic Principles:

• DISTINCTION:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Article 48. See Also Commentary.

• PROPORTIONALITY:

U.S. Army Field Manual FM27-10: Law of Land Warfare (July 1956), Page 5, Paragraph 41.

• MILITARY NECESSITY:

The Law of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law in War, by Gary D. Solis, Cambridge University Press; 1st Edition (February 15, 2010), Page 258.

• UNNECESSARY SUFFERING:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Article 35.2. See also Commentary.


































But you knew that.

Right?

you seem to be confused, poster. let me help you out with that ..


Bush on waterboarding: 'Damn right'

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/...ook/index.html


George W Bush: 'waterboarding' terrorists saved British lives

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ish-lives.html


Donald Trump’s vow to ‘bring back waterboarding’? Consider it broken

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...waterboarding/


if you double click the "like" button real fast .. you can double like your own post!


BAHHAHHHHAAAHHAAAAAA


you actually fell for that??


BAHHHAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


now watch me actually do it ..

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

why not? you have a better source? go edit The Lord Emperor Donald, Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse's page. edit it to say "Ecky9.5k says Donnie is poopy dicknose and Jimmy Wales sucks dick"

anyone can edit Wikipedia, right?? even you. right??

Other Sources:

• Department of Defense Law of War Manual, June 2015 (Updated May 2016), Office of General Counsel Department of Defense, Page 50.

• Introduction to the Law of Armed Conflict, Basic Knowledge, Lesson 1, Published by ICRC (found at ICRC.org).

• The Law of Armed Conflict, The Conduct of Operations – Part A, Lesson 3, Common Features of the Law Applicable to All Operations, Published by the ICRC (found at ICRC.org).

• Law of Armed Conflict’s Four Core Principles, by Solis (found at http://www3.nd.edu/~cpence/eewt/Solis7.pdf)

Link to Articles:

• https://www.diakonia.se/en/IHL/The-L...rnational-Law/

• https://www.gsdrc.org/topic-guides/international-legal-frameworks-for-humanitarian-action/concepts/overview-of-international-humanitarian-law/

• https://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/05/the-law-of-armed-conflict

• https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/f...edconflict.pdf

Try not to use wikipedia again, sir.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Other Sources:

• Department of Defense Law of War Manual, June 2015 (Updated May 2016), Office of General Counsel Department of Defense, Page 50.

• Introduction to the Law of Armed Conflict, Basic Knowledge, Lesson 1, Published by ICRC (found at ICRC.org).

• The Law of Armed Conflict, The Conduct of Operations – Part A, Lesson 3, Common Features of the Law Applicable to All Operations, Published by the ICRC (found at ICRC.org).

• Law of Armed Conflict’s Four Core Principles, by Solis (found at http://www3.nd.edu/~cpence/eewt/Solis7.pdf)

Link to Articles:

• https://www.diakonia.se/en/IHL/The-L...rnational-Law/

• https://www.gsdrc.org/topic-guides/international-legal-frameworks-for-humanitarian-action/concepts/overview-of-international-humanitarian-law/

• https://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/05/the-law-of-armed-conflict

• https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/f...edconflict.pdf

Try not to use wikipedia again, sir.

why not? Jimmy Wales likes it. why don't you?



if you double click real fast on the "like" button .. you can double like your own post!!!


BAHHAHAAAA

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Pretty much sums up "Individual 1" from his birth. "Individual 1" does not care about national security. AKA: Treason.

Why would "Individual 1" ask the Attorney General to publicly state "Individual 1" did nothing wrong on the call.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

it's treason to oppose the lawful directions of the sitting president.


butt .. you knew that, right???

not treason. sedition.

[Unique_Carpenter]

U.S. Code § 2384.Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

[oeb11]

Trump does use the term "Treason" inappropriately at times.

Thanks for the clarification, UC.
Perhaps the DPST's will read and look at their own narrative - BUT NO!!!

[Unique_Carpenter]

Dilbert got it,
I just laid out the 20 year felony sentance.
Maybe Pelosi is afraid of something.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

not treason. sedition.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

U.S. Code § 2384.Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Treason is an act against the allegiance to your country.

Originally Posted by oeb11

Trump does use the term "Treason" inappropriately at times.

Thanks for the clarification, UC.
Perhaps the DPST's will read and look at their own narrative - BUT NO!!!

"Individual 1" should take a look at his narrative directed against American Veterans and Honorable Ambassadors. But, we know he can't.

Differenve Between Sedition & Treason

Sedition and treason are words often used interchangeably to describe acts of defiance against an established authority. The definition of these words, however, show that they are not one in the same. Examples of each can help drive home the differences between these two words.

By: Paula McCullough

[eccieuser9500]

Now he doesn't want public hearings? What the fuck is wrong with him?