Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Micha or Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
What in the world is going on around here?
Speaker 3 (00:03):
First you Fellas slide across the hallway to the formerly
respectable establishment known as K zero, ay, thereby putting a
ripple in a time space continuum. And now all of
a sudden, we got a bunch of nerds out in
the desert finding glowing the dark electric penguins.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Whatever the hell that is sounds like an art bell
thing to me.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Anyway, what's next? Six foot chickens with gwitch blades running
the muck in the supermarkets, Avengin, the centuries, the poultry genocide. Maybe,
just maybe I should consider switching to decaf?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
What do you think? No, Date Fellas, Yeah, don't switch
to decaf. If I know that was going to be
the talk back, I would have tried to find me.
Of course. Then we can put it. Can we put
the art bell theme song? That wouldn't show up on
the podcast either, would it?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
No?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Wouldn't it? By the way, who are you?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I have no idea? I'm not here right now, you're not?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Are you still in bed?
Speaker 1 (00:52):
WI? Great? Damn Broncos win it?
Speaker 2 (00:59):
When did the game fight? When the game actually end?
Speaker 5 (01:02):
Sometime between ten and thirty at ten thirty. I really
don't know for certain.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
So were you watching it in bed or you did
you go to bed.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Afterwards watching another big screen on the main floor.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Okay, and then so do the game's over, then you
go upstairs and go to bed, and yes, and then
how long did you like roll around back and forth,
back and forth before you finally cracked down?
Speaker 1 (01:19):
At least half an hour?
Speaker 5 (01:21):
And I'm sure I'm not the only one because Ross
confirmed this also the in overtime Thank you very much,
Broncos overtime game. They drove down the field, they got
the ball first, they drove down the field, scored a touchdown.
I'm like, thank goodness, games over. No, they changed the
overtime rules Now both teams get a position to possession
(01:41):
no matter what.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well. I was confused by the news reports this morning
showing the plays, so I had to go on to
the NFL's website and look up the overtime rules. I
didn't know. I thought it was you know, they flip
visiting captain you know, calls the toss and so they
get the ball and whoever scores first wins.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
That's it.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
That's what it used to be, long, long, long time ago.
But then they changed it ten fifteen years ago, give
or take to where if you scored a touchdown on
your first drive, the game's over. If you scored a
field goal, then the other team got a chance to
start the field goal or a touchdown to win the game.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Okay, so is this supposed to make the game?
Speaker 5 (02:24):
It gives both teams a chance to touch the ball,
laddie boy, So.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Let me interpret that for you. It gives the advertisers
and the NFL more time to sell space, you know,
for a commercial, to sell you more beer or whatever
they're trying to sell. Sure, yeah, that's what that's so, Yes,
that that's I'm sure the genesis of that particular are
changing the overtime rules. Well, I can tell you're in
(02:51):
a good mood. I can tell you're happy, and I'm
happy for you, and I'm.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Just yeah whatever, ten and two take it, man.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I know, I know, and I and I take it
that it was really just because they were able to
tip the pass that saved the day.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
Well, I mean the commanders would have to have caught
the past too, so they well, true, true.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
But they can't catch the pass if you dip the pass. True, Technically,
they I mean, technically they could somebody else could have
caught it, you know, if they've been in the right position. Uh.
The story that I want to start out with this
morning is not necessarily by the by the way, text line.
If you want to send me a text message, keyword
Mike or Michael three three one zero three, three three
(03:37):
one zero three, if you use the other number, which
I honestly don't know what the other number is, but
if you want me, if you send it to the
other number, I'm not going to see it. Three three
one zero three. The first three I want to talk
about today is probably not going to make any of
you happy, and I'm not I'm not doing this just
you know, because it's Monday, after the holiday, and I'm
(03:57):
just out here to piss people off. No, that's not
it at all. But I've been bothered by something happened
back in sept It happened. It was a US military
operation on September two, twenty twenty five. You know the speedboats,
the cigarette boats, whenever you call them. You know those
those fancy boats that you know go cruising across the water.
(04:17):
They're coming out of Caracas or somewhere in Venezuela and
then taking drugs to Trinidad or someplace and eventually making
them to Pueblo that on into Denver. No, I guess
that's not that Trinidad. It must be a Trinidad dad
in the Is it the Caribbeano the Caribbean? Yes, Okay,
they were targeting one of those suspected narcotics speedboats in
(04:40):
the Caribbean. It was off the coast of Trinidad. Now,
according to multiple sources, and I've read the story from CNN,
the Washington Post, and I have read what the congressional
oversight bodies so far have said about it. The initial
strike on this boat was done by the infam that
not infamous, the famous Seal Team six. It disabled the vessel,
(05:07):
it killed most on board, but left two survivors clinging,
clinging to the wreckage. So then, and I'm I'm kind
of a little I'm not gonna be very specific here
because the timeline is not very clear yet, which is
what investigators are looking at. But sometime after Seal Team
(05:28):
six originally disabled the vessel killed almost everybody, blew up
the boat. You know, you've seen the black and white,
black and white videos. They blow up the boat, but
two people survive and they're clinging to wreckage of the boat.
At some point, somehow, a second strike was then authorized,
(05:52):
killing the two survivors. Now, all of these operations are
part of Trump's campaign against the drug cartels, and it
is in my these are legitimate campaigns. I'm trying to
make sure you understand that what I'm about to tell
you is not because I'm opposed to stopping these terrorists,
(06:14):
these narco terrorists, from bringing drugs into the country. I
actually support these operations. But I think we did something wrong.
I think we did something very wrong. Now, since this occurred,
the Death Secretary Pete Hegsath has reportedly issued orders to
(06:37):
quote leave no survivors, though it's unclear if he was
aware of the specific survivors at the time of the
second strike. Now, the administration maintains compliance with the law
of armed conflict, but that's now sparked by partisan investigations
by the House Armed Services Committee and of course legal life.
(07:00):
It's all across the country are chiming in. I say
by partisan, you know I don't. I'm not a big
fan of bipartisanship. I think if you honestly believe in something,
you ought to stick to your guns on principles. There
are times when you can compromise and not compromise your principles.
And if you need to do that to get a
particular thing passed, a piece of legislation passed, then I'm
(07:23):
okay with that if it still complies with your principles.
I emphasize that it's by partisanship in this situation because
both Republicans and what people I would consider to be
extraordinarily conservative Republicans and Democrats, which obviously they are not conservative,
are all questioning this second strike. Now, under a US
(07:47):
federal law, war crimes. Don't don't don't, don't. Don't get
all too excited about the word war crimes. But war
crimes are codified in the War Crimes Act of nineteen
ninety six. If you want to read the War Crimes
Act in nineteen ninety six, that is codified in Title eighteen. Gosh,
we seem to be talking an awful lot about Title
eighteen on this program recently, because that's the Criminal Code.
(08:12):
It's Title eighteen, Section two four four one, twenty four
to forty one. Now that section criminalizes grave breaches of
the Geneva Conventions ends particular violations of the Hague Conventions.
The penalties include fines, imprisonment up to life, or death
if death results. The Act applies extra territorially if the
(08:35):
perpetrator or the victim is a US national, or if
the offender, the one who violates the War Crimes Act
is present in the United States, which is a kind
of critical fact question because the fact question here is
who is the offender? Is the offender the President? Is it?
(08:57):
The Secretary of Defense? Is it the commander of Southcom
is it the leader of Seal Team six? Is it
the person that was sitting And I'm not sure where
this strike originated, but where the drones launched on one
of the aircraft carriers? But was the drone being operated
(09:20):
by somebody in a monitoring room outside Las Vegas somewhere.
I don't know the answers of those questions. But what
are grave breaches? Grave breaches under Title eighteen include the
wilful killing of persons that are protected under the Geneva
Convention Convention, So obviously we have the factual question here
(09:43):
of who is was there a wilful killing? And was
there a person that was protected under the Geneva Convention
Convention now common Article three violations type are founded twenty
four to forty one sub paragrap in non international arm conflicts,
(10:05):
which is what this operation would be classified as. It
prohibits violence. Our criminal code prohibits violence to life in person,
including the murder of all kinds, against persons taking no
part in no active part in hostilities well, such as
those who are the French phrase or to combat out
(10:28):
of combat. Now, the Department Defense Law of War Manual,
which was updated two years ago. It was published in
twenty sixteen, updated in twenty twenty three, explicitly incorporates these
grave breaches, and it incorporates the Article three conventions from
the Geneva Convention and the Hay Convention, so those are
(10:51):
all part of our statute. It states that persons incapacitated
by shipwreck are in a helpless state and may not
be the object, may not be made the object of attack. Now,
(11:11):
prosecution requires intent, In other words, you have to have
knowledge of the protected status of the individuals involved. So
they would have to have known that there were two
survivors of the initial strike that were clinging to life,
hanging on to either parts of the boat, debree, life jackets, whatever,
But they were still in the water near where the
boat was blown up. So I think they are probably
(11:34):
that they're obviously helpless. They can't do anything. They're clinging
for their lives on parts of the boat that are
still afloat. So they are clearly in a helpless state,
and they are or to combat. They are out of combat,
and the prosecution of anybody and we don't know who
that would be yet, but prosecution would require intent. In
other words, you would have to know the protected status
(11:58):
of those individuals, and superior orders are not a defense
if the act was unlawful and the individual knew or
should have known this. This is called the Nuremberg principle.
It's also qualified in US military law in the Manual
for Courts Martial. So when you think about we are
a party to the four nineteen forty nine Geneva Conventions
(12:20):
and that forms the core of the international humanitarian law
and are directly implemented in US law via the War
Crimes Act, this scenario that I've outlined implicates protections for
those or to combat out of combat individuals a stagger,
a status that triggers immunity from attack. This really bugs
(12:45):
me because it appears that under both US federal law
and Geneva conventions. I think this strike may I'm not
saying it is, but it troubles me because one, I
have the greatest respect for Seal Team six I've met.
(13:06):
I mean, Seal Team six has people that move in
and out all the time, but I have met people
who have been a part of Seal Team six during
my tenures of the inter Secretary of Homelandsecurity, and I've
got great respect for them, and I can't imagine them.
I mean, if they go in to kill, trust me,
they go in to kill. Have you ever watched the
video what's been released about the raid on the Osama
(13:29):
Bin Laden compound in Pakistan? Amazing stuff. You really ought
to go watch it. I'm concerned about this because one
is involves Seal Team six and the video, some snippets
of the video that you can find online show these
non combatants, these or to combat out of combat, two
(13:50):
individuals clinging to their lives. So they're clearly not a
threat to anybody to no one who ordered the second strike,
whoever ordered the second strike, did they know that those
two individuals were there? Did any member of Sealed Team six.
Don't know that those two individuals were there, and if so,
(14:13):
if so, notice I'm trying to emphasize all of this
because we don't know, but if so, probably a violation
of the War Crimes Act, and that's not good for us.
And who do I mean by us? The United States
of America, Sealed Team six, the Defense Secretary, the commander
of the Southern Command, anybody, anybody at all in that
(14:37):
chain and command that you know went up and down
the chain about you know, and why would you Why
would you even question or even ask for a second
strike unless you knew there were survivors. I mean, there
may be other reasons, but I can't think of any.
(15:00):
You know. The Trump administration's non international are in conflict framing,
which I think is legitimate, still does not exempt the
country or the individuals involved from prosecution of the War
Crimes Act. Common Article three applies and offers equivalent protections
(15:22):
our rules of engagement and training, emphasizing refusing unlawful orders. Oh,
we talked about that last week, and we've got ongoing
congressional probes which could lead to charges. Though I know
there will be a bazillion political factors that could influence
those outcomes. But whatever, just we conclude with this. Whatever
(15:45):
you're hearing about the strike on this boat back in September,
I forget when I think in my notes, I've got
September five, No, September two, September two, twenty twenty five.
Whatever you're hearing, the question remains, and I think a
legitimate question remains, why the second strike? Who ordered the
(16:06):
second strike? Were they aware of the two individuals that
were cleaning to their lives. Look, I understand their dirt bags,
but their dirt bags that if they were there, then
we should have sent, you know, somebody, and Seal Team
six could have done it. Anybody could have done it
to rescue them and then take them to get MO,
take them to Guantanamo Bay, take them to you know,
(16:27):
imprison them or whatever, and absent any of that there
indeed may have been may have been a violation of
the War Crimes Act. Wow, We've got to be careful
when we're doing these kinds of things, because the entire
world is watching.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Michael.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
If that was two dirt bags hanging to life at
the taxpayer relief shot, because now we don't have to
put up with the GITMO, all the fees and all
that stuff to support human life, and they're done, and
we don't.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
It's it's good for America. Well, this is where we
may have a disagreement. And I knew this would be.
And I'm not trying to be controversial. I'm just as
I for those of you who are new listening to me, now,
I know that you that we just have to talk aback.
I know you're you're a good regular listener. And I
(17:25):
hope your check clear this this month. If it didn't
speak to mister Redbeard, he's the chief financial officer. That's programmed.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
It's safe for elections, it's safe for your chance.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
You put it out here in our mail box for
that way mail, right, Yeah, maybe I'll just go pick
it up and cash it myself then, because I know
it's still there. I just tell you what I really think.
I don't make up crap. I don't try to play
to the audience. I just say what I really believe.
And you it's just it's meant to put it out
there so that it gives you something to think about.
(17:58):
And clearly looking at the text line, Wow, gubernerber ninety
five zero four Michael, I do not advocate gratuitous killing.
But does the second strike run amok of the War
Crimes Act if these people are declared terrorists. Yes, this
(18:20):
is my point. It doesn't make any difference whether they're
terrorists or their combatants or their non combatants, their their
their uniformed state enemies from you know, somewhere that's attacking us,
doesn't make any difference. Let me give you an example,
(18:42):
and I think the best example because it also involves
Seal Team six, is the rate on the Osama bin
laden compound in Pakistan. Now they killed. Now, for all
you conspiracy theorists out there, Oslama been louden still alive.
I don't believe that. But they they go in, they
(19:03):
raid the house, they start working their way all through
the house. They're they're taking fire as they raid the compound.
They're taking fire as they get into the house inside
the compound, and then they finally make their way up
and I forget whether it was the second or third
floor or even higher, but at some point they finally
find that that debris strewn office that that ubl had
(19:30):
where he had his little computer and all his papers,
everything all stacked up and he was armed and he
fired at them, and they took him out completely justified.
Now they're taking fire. They make their way up in
the house, inside the bin laden compound. They get to
where he is in his office, and he's playing Solitaire
(19:53):
on his computer, or he's watching the security cameras, or
he's busy trying to you know, shred documents, or he's
taking a whiz, he's doing whatever he's doing, whatever he is,
he's not a threat to them at that point. If
they had killed him Sealed Team six, even though that
is a terrorist, would have been a War Crimes Act.
(20:17):
So the moniker or the labeling as someone as a
terrorist or a non terrorist is immaterial under Title eighteen
then twenty one to fifty nine, Mike, we are not
at war. Therefore is a War Crimes Act in effect, Yes,
don't don't. Don't misuse the term war because we are engaged.
(20:41):
The War Crimes Act applies to military operations, whether those
are under a declaration of war or those are under
the powers of the executive to protect the national security
of the United States. Take them to get MO. Let
me finish the message. Take them to get Mo. No,
(21:02):
just more fodder for the Democrats to manipulate must think
taxpayer relief shots. We just can't house everyone that won't
comply with Geneva rules written mostly by the people that
hate Americans. Well then we if that is one I
disagree because two, that's not It's not just the Geneva Conventions.
(21:22):
Remember I've cited Title eighteen Congress, and if you don't
like this, it's fine, they'll get me wrong. You can
choose to like it or not like it. But Congress
has codified the Geneva and Hay Conventions into the Criminal
Code of the United States of America. It's just simply
(21:44):
a crime. If what occurred occurred under the facts as
I described them, then it would be a war crime.
And it's it's not because I disagree with trying to
intercede and well up these drug boats. I'm actually in
favor of that. So I think we need to just recognize.
(22:09):
There's one more I want to get to. This is
Guber number seventy two sixty seven. You raise a great
point that I disagree with questioning the second strike. Well,
I'm not on one side of the world. Putin sends
missiles into apartment buildings, killing women and children. The media
give this a whole hum. We maybe kill two surviving
(22:32):
Narco terrorists and the media is all over it. Do
the media think that the two survivors should have been
rescued and given paid for attorneys to sue us? I
don't give a rats ask what the media thinks. I'm
dealing in the real world, and I don't judge what
we should or should not do based on what some
(22:54):
thug in Moscow makes a decision to do or not do.
That's the kind of what about ism that I think
is wrong.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
I think sometimes what about ism is absolutely appropriate, and
I think what about ism used very stringently is actually
a good thing. It's it's just comparing apples to apples.
Oh you when to talking about what ibson? What about this?
And what about that? I think that's legitimate. But to
say because Putin's doing something bad that then we shouldn't
(23:27):
care about the War Crimes Act. We're better than that,
and it has nothing to do with the media. I
don't give a rat sass what the media thinks. What
I care about is that we adhere to the rule
of law. And if you don't like the War Powers Act,
and if you don't like Now, first of all, my
(23:48):
interpretation is subject to dispute. People can argue both sides
of this. I happen to fall on the side that
just like ubl IF Seal Team six inside the compound
had gotten to the third or fourth floor, whichever one
it was, I just don't remember, and had found Osama
(24:09):
bin Laden sitting there and he was not immediately a threat.
They had to take him in to custody. They had
to take him back to the aircraft carrier, and then
he would have ended up in Gitmo. He would not
have ended up in a federal court. In fact, we
may have sitt him to a black opsite in you know,
(24:32):
some country where he'd never been heard from again. So
don't don't conflate the word terrorists with this. Now, text
line is blowing up. I think this is this is great.
Eight ninety four nine war crimes. Then riddled me this
(24:55):
when Sheriff Judd Grady Judd was asked why they shot
the purp was shot sixty eight times, as the response
was because that's all the ammunition we had, or we
would have shot him more. Uh. First, let let's think
about taxpayer relief shots. If a cop shoots someone and
(25:18):
it's not justified the cop and have we have cases
in Colorado where a cop has killed an individual it
is determined by a jury of their peers that he
did not have justification for to do so, and he's
held he's been held criminally liable, and they've been put
(25:38):
in jail. So you're you're, you're conflating all these different
things and you really need to separate them. This is
not a taxpayer relief shot. When when Sheriff Grady says
we shot him sixty eight times, we ran out of
AMMO and we was shot him more, that starts with
(26:01):
the presumption that it was a lawful shooting by the popo.
That's why we play that particular sound vibe because one,
I think it's kind of hilarious. Let's see there was
four oh one. Good question, but I'll have to see you,
(26:23):
but I'll do it after the break, Michael.
Speaker 6 (26:26):
If the Europeans try to prosecute Seal Team six under
a War Crimes Act, the United States needs to immediately
withdraw from NATRO in all alliances with European countries.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
That this is not a NATO or a Hague prosecution.
They have nothing to do with this. Everybody's head's exploding
without understanding the nature of what's taking place here. This is,
(27:04):
in my opinion, a violation or could be a violation
of Title eighteen of the United States Criminal Code, which
simply incorporates meaning that Congress looked in nineteen forty nine,
Congress looked at the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention
and said we agree with this, and then years later
(27:27):
they adopted those conventions as part of our own US
Criminal Code. Go look it up in Title eighteen. And
so there's no prosecution from some international organization. This would
be a prosecution by either a judge advocate general through
(27:47):
a courts martial, or it could be a prosecution through
federal district court, a criminal caation federal district court. But
I want to make sure, based on the text lines,
that you understand the difference between a taxpayer relief shot
and or to combat someone who is out of combat,
(28:09):
because these are combat situations. These are not civilian criminal situations.
In fact, I have a friend who is a judge
advocate general who sent me a note and just said,
I really hope you succeed in defining the difference between
what or to combat and tax payer relief shots. And
(28:34):
we both recognize that this is not something that people
think about all the time. But this JAG also has
a little concern about what seems to have happened and
points out that this is law of armed conflict one
oh one. This is like first year LOS stuff for
(28:54):
JAG officers. And I'm trying to lay the groundwork for
you to be prepared when Congress does an investigation and
Republicans and Democrats alike determine that there was a Court
of War Crime Act here, and they refer it to
a US attorney for prosecution, or they refer it back
(29:15):
to d D, or DD itself initiates an investigation, and
DD engages in a court martial because I think there's
a very real possibility of this. Now. Factually, I don't
know the timing or who ordered the second strike, but
(29:39):
the second strike is what bothers me. Let's take a
World War two scene.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
I know that war is hell.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
I'm obviously I've never been in war, but I know,
based on my study that war is hell. But we
have a moral obligation. For example, if if they come
across whether it's World War two, Vietnam and it's a
viet Cong, or it's Korea, or it's in Afghanistan, or
(30:13):
it's in Iraq, I don't care where it is. But
they come across an enemy combatant or an enemy soldier
in uniform or whatever, and they are or to combat,
they are out of combat. It would be a war
crime act for a US soldier to just shoot that soldier,
(30:35):
that non combatant, non combatant or combatant or enemy soldier.
It would be a war crime to just whom just
shooting eli. I hate to bring that up, but because
that's too emotionally laden, does that ring a bell with anybody?
Speaker 1 (30:56):
You see?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
I think what we're all so sick and tired of
drug dealers everybody else. But in this if if those
drug dealers were on American soil and they were caught
dealing and an FBI agent or a local yocal cop
(31:19):
just saw them dealing, and they didn't point a gun
at the at the law enforcement officer, they didn't threaten
the law enforcement officer, but the law enforcement officer said,
oh there's a drug dealer, boom and just takes them out.
That would be a bad taxpayer relief shot. Now you
take those that scenario and put it over here where
(31:42):
we have a narco terrorist and some have been killed,
but some of some of us have survived. They're there
or to combat, they are out of combat. They're not
a threat to Sealed Team six at all, and yet
somebody up to chain of command somewhere ordered a second
strike to kill them. I think that's a violation of
(32:04):
the UH. That's that's a violation that that's a war crime. Now,
that's all factually, that's all fact dependent, meaning that I'm
just trying to prepare you for the likelihood that either
a congressional investigation, a military investigation, or a criminal investigation
(32:28):
could indeed find that this action was illegal. I want
you to be prepared for that.
Micha or Michael.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
What in the world is going on around here?
Speaker 3 (00:03):
First you Fellas slide across the hallway to the formerly
respectable establishment known as K zero, ay, thereby putting a
ripple in a time space continuum. And now all of
a sudden, we got a bunch of nerds out in
the desert finding glowing the dark electric penguins.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Whatever the hell that is sounds like an art bell
thing to me.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
Anyway, what's next? Six foot chickens with gwitch blades running
the muck in the supermarkets, Avengin, the centuries, the poultry genocide. Maybe,
just maybe I should consider switching to decaf?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
What do you think? No, Date Fellas, Yeah, don't switch
to decaf. If I know that was going to be
the talk back, I would have tried to find me.
Of course. Then we can put it. Can we put
the art bell theme song? That wouldn't show up on
the podcast either, would it?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
No?
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Wouldn't it? By the way, who are you?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I have no idea? I'm not here right now, you're not?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Are you still in bed?
Speaker 1 (00:52):
WI? Great? Damn Broncos win it?
Speaker 2 (00:59):
When did the game fight? When the game actually end?
Speaker 5 (01:02):
Sometime between ten and thirty at ten thirty. I really
don't know for certain.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
So were you watching it in bed or you did
you go to bed.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Afterwards watching another big screen on the main floor.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Okay, and then so do the game's over, then you
go upstairs and go to bed, and yes, and then
how long did you like roll around back and forth,
back and forth before you finally cracked down?
Speaker 1 (01:19):
At least half an hour?
Speaker 5 (01:21):
And I'm sure I'm not the only one because Ross
confirmed this also the in overtime Thank you very much,
Broncos overtime game. They drove down the field, they got
the ball first, they drove down the field, scored a touchdown.
I'm like, thank goodness, games over. No, they changed the
overtime rules Now both teams get a position to possession
(01:41):
no matter what.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well. I was confused by the news reports this morning
showing the plays, so I had to go on to
the NFL's website and look up the overtime rules. I
didn't know. I thought it was you know, they flip
visiting captain you know, calls the toss and so they
get the ball and whoever scores first wins.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
That's it.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
That's what it used to be, long, long, long time ago.
But then they changed it ten fifteen years ago, give
or take to where if you scored a touchdown on
your first drive, the game's over. If you scored a
field goal, then the other team got a chance to
start the field goal or a touchdown to win the game.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Okay, so is this supposed to make the game?
Speaker 5 (02:24):
It gives both teams a chance to touch the ball,
laddie boy, So.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Let me interpret that for you. It gives the advertisers
and the NFL more time to sell space, you know,
for a commercial, to sell you more beer or whatever
they're trying to sell. Sure, yeah, that's what that's so, Yes,
that that's I'm sure the genesis of that particular are
changing the overtime rules. Well, I can tell you're in
(02:51):
a good mood. I can tell you're happy, and I'm
happy for you, and I'm.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Just yeah whatever, ten and two take it, man.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I know, I know, and I and I take it
that it was really just because they were able to
tip the pass that saved the day.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
Well, I mean the commanders would have to have caught
the past too, so they well, true, true.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
But they can't catch the pass if you dip the pass. True, Technically,
they I mean, technically they could somebody else could have
caught it, you know, if they've been in the right position. Uh.
The story that I want to start out with this
morning is not necessarily by the by the way, text line.
If you want to send me a text message, keyword
Mike or Michael three three one zero three, three three
(03:37):
one zero three, if you use the other number, which
I honestly don't know what the other number is, but
if you want me, if you send it to the
other number, I'm not going to see it. Three three
one zero three. The first three I want to talk
about today is probably not going to make any of
you happy, and I'm not I'm not doing this just
you know, because it's Monday, after the holiday, and I'm
(03:57):
just out here to piss people off. No, that's not
it at all. But I've been bothered by something happened
back in sept It happened. It was a US military
operation on September two, twenty twenty five. You know the speedboats,
the cigarette boats, whenever you call them. You know those
those fancy boats that you know go cruising across the water.
(04:17):
They're coming out of Caracas or somewhere in Venezuela and
then taking drugs to Trinidad or someplace and eventually making
them to Pueblo that on into Denver. No, I guess
that's not that Trinidad. It must be a Trinidad dad
in the Is it the Caribbeano the Caribbean? Yes, Okay,
they were targeting one of those suspected narcotics speedboats in
(04:40):
the Caribbean. It was off the coast of Trinidad. Now,
according to multiple sources, and I've read the story from CNN,
the Washington Post, and I have read what the congressional
oversight bodies so far have said about it. The initial
strike on this boat was done by the infam that
not infamous, the famous Seal Team six. It disabled the vessel,
(05:07):
it killed most on board, but left two survivors clinging,
clinging to the wreckage. So then, and I'm I'm kind
of a little I'm not gonna be very specific here
because the timeline is not very clear yet, which is
what investigators are looking at. But sometime after Seal Team
(05:28):
six originally disabled the vessel killed almost everybody, blew up
the boat. You know, you've seen the black and white,
black and white videos. They blow up the boat, but
two people survive and they're clinging to wreckage of the boat.
At some point, somehow, a second strike was then authorized,
(05:52):
killing the two survivors. Now, all of these operations are
part of Trump's campaign against the drug cartels, and it
is in my these are legitimate campaigns. I'm trying to
make sure you understand that what I'm about to tell
you is not because I'm opposed to stopping these terrorists,
(06:14):
these narco terrorists, from bringing drugs into the country. I
actually support these operations. But I think we did something wrong.
I think we did something very wrong. Now, since this occurred,
the Death Secretary Pete Hegsath has reportedly issued orders to
(06:37):
quote leave no survivors, though it's unclear if he was
aware of the specific survivors at the time of the
second strike. Now, the administration maintains compliance with the law
of armed conflict, but that's now sparked by partisan investigations
by the House Armed Services Committee and of course legal life.
(07:00):
It's all across the country are chiming in. I say
by partisan, you know I don't. I'm not a big
fan of bipartisanship. I think if you honestly believe in something,
you ought to stick to your guns on principles. There
are times when you can compromise and not compromise your principles.
And if you need to do that to get a
particular thing passed, a piece of legislation passed, then I'm
(07:23):
okay with that if it still complies with your principles.
I emphasize that it's by partisanship in this situation because
both Republicans and what people I would consider to be
extraordinarily conservative Republicans and Democrats, which obviously they are not conservative,
are all questioning this second strike. Now, under a US
(07:47):
federal law, war crimes. Don't don't don't, don't. Don't get
all too excited about the word war crimes. But war
crimes are codified in the War Crimes Act of nineteen
ninety six. If you want to read the War Crimes
Act in nineteen ninety six, that is codified in Title eighteen. Gosh,
we seem to be talking an awful lot about Title
eighteen on this program recently, because that's the Criminal Code.
(08:12):
It's Title eighteen, Section two four four one, twenty four
to forty one. Now that section criminalizes grave breaches of
the Geneva Conventions ends particular violations of the Hague Conventions.
The penalties include fines, imprisonment up to life, or death
if death results. The Act applies extra territorially if the
(08:35):
perpetrator or the victim is a US national, or if
the offender, the one who violates the War Crimes Act
is present in the United States, which is a kind
of critical fact question because the fact question here is
who is the offender? Is the offender the President? Is it?
(08:57):
The Secretary of Defense? Is it the commander of Southcom
is it the leader of Seal Team six? Is it
the person that was sitting And I'm not sure where
this strike originated, but where the drones launched on one
of the aircraft carriers? But was the drone being operated
(09:20):
by somebody in a monitoring room outside Las Vegas somewhere.
I don't know the answers of those questions. But what
are grave breaches? Grave breaches under Title eighteen include the
wilful killing of persons that are protected under the Geneva
Convention Convention, So obviously we have the factual question here
(09:43):
of who is was there a wilful killing? And was
there a person that was protected under the Geneva Convention
Convention now common Article three violations type are founded twenty
four to forty one sub paragrap in non international arm conflicts,
(10:05):
which is what this operation would be classified as. It
prohibits violence. Our criminal code prohibits violence to life in person,
including the murder of all kinds, against persons taking no
part in no active part in hostilities well, such as
those who are the French phrase or to combat out
(10:28):
of combat. Now, the Department Defense Law of War Manual,
which was updated two years ago. It was published in
twenty sixteen, updated in twenty twenty three, explicitly incorporates these
grave breaches, and it incorporates the Article three conventions from
the Geneva Convention and the Hay Convention, so those are
(10:51):
all part of our statute. It states that persons incapacitated
by shipwreck are in a helpless state and may not
be the object, may not be made the object of attack. Now,
(11:11):
prosecution requires intent, In other words, you have to have
knowledge of the protected status of the individuals involved. So
they would have to have known that there were two
survivors of the initial strike that were clinging to life,
hanging on to either parts of the boat, debree, life jackets, whatever,
But they were still in the water near where the
boat was blown up. So I think they are probably
(11:34):
that they're obviously helpless. They can't do anything. They're clinging
for their lives on parts of the boat that are
still afloat. So they are clearly in a helpless state,
and they are or to combat. They are out of combat,
and the prosecution of anybody and we don't know who
that would be yet, but prosecution would require intent. In
other words, you would have to know the protected status
(11:58):
of those individuals, and superior orders are not a defense
if the act was unlawful and the individual knew or
should have known this. This is called the Nuremberg principle.
It's also qualified in US military law in the Manual
for Courts Martial. So when you think about we are
a party to the four nineteen forty nine Geneva Conventions
(12:20):
and that forms the core of the international humanitarian law
and are directly implemented in US law via the War
Crimes Act, this scenario that I've outlined implicates protections for
those or to combat out of combat individuals a stagger,
a status that triggers immunity from attack. This really bugs
(12:45):
me because it appears that under both US federal law
and Geneva conventions. I think this strike may I'm not
saying it is, but it troubles me because one, I
have the greatest respect for Seal Team six I've met.
(13:06):
I mean, Seal Team six has people that move in
and out all the time, but I have met people
who have been a part of Seal Team six during
my tenures of the inter Secretary of Homelandsecurity, and I've
got great respect for them, and I can't imagine them.
I mean, if they go in to kill, trust me,
they go in to kill. Have you ever watched the
video what's been released about the raid on the Osama
(13:29):
Bin Laden compound in Pakistan? Amazing stuff. You really ought
to go watch it. I'm concerned about this because one
is involves Seal Team six and the video, some snippets
of the video that you can find online show these
non combatants, these or to combat out of combat, two
(13:50):
individuals clinging to their lives. So they're clearly not a
threat to anybody to no one who ordered the second strike,
whoever ordered the second strike, did they know that those
two individuals were there? Did any member of Sealed Team six.
Don't know that those two individuals were there, and if so,
(14:13):
if so, notice I'm trying to emphasize all of this
because we don't know, but if so, probably a violation
of the War Crimes Act, and that's not good for us.
And who do I mean by us? The United States
of America, Sealed Team six, the Defense Secretary, the commander
of the Southern Command, anybody, anybody at all in that
(14:37):
chain and command that you know went up and down
the chain about you know, and why would you Why
would you even question or even ask for a second
strike unless you knew there were survivors. I mean, there
may be other reasons, but I can't think of any.
(15:00):
You know. The Trump administration's non international are in conflict framing,
which I think is legitimate, still does not exempt the
country or the individuals involved from prosecution of the War
Crimes Act. Common Article three applies and offers equivalent protections
(15:22):
our rules of engagement and training, emphasizing refusing unlawful orders. Oh,
we talked about that last week, and we've got ongoing
congressional probes which could lead to charges. Though I know
there will be a bazillion political factors that could influence
those outcomes. But whatever, just we conclude with this. Whatever
(15:45):
you're hearing about the strike on this boat back in September,
I forget when I think in my notes, I've got
September five, No, September two, September two, twenty twenty five.
Whatever you're hearing, the question remains, and I think a
legitimate question remains, why the second strike? Who ordered the
(16:06):
second strike? Were they aware of the two individuals that
were cleaning to their lives. Look, I understand their dirt bags,
but their dirt bags that if they were there, then
we should have sent, you know, somebody, and Seal Team
six could have done it. Anybody could have done it
to rescue them and then take them to get MO,
take them to Guantanamo Bay, take them to you know,
(16:27):
imprison them or whatever, and absent any of that there
indeed may have been may have been a violation of
the War Crimes Act. Wow, We've got to be careful
when we're doing these kinds of things, because the entire
world is watching.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Michael.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
If that was two dirt bags hanging to life at
the taxpayer relief shot, because now we don't have to
put up with the GITMO, all the fees and all
that stuff to support human life, and they're done, and
we don't.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
It's it's good for America. Well, this is where we
may have a disagreement. And I knew this would be.
And I'm not trying to be controversial. I'm just as
I for those of you who are new listening to me, now,
I know that you that we just have to talk aback.
I know you're you're a good regular listener. And I
(17:25):
hope your check clear this this month. If it didn't
speak to mister Redbeard, he's the chief financial officer. That's programmed.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
It's safe for elections, it's safe for your chance.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
You put it out here in our mail box for
that way mail, right, Yeah, maybe I'll just go pick
it up and cash it myself then, because I know
it's still there. I just tell you what I really think.
I don't make up crap. I don't try to play
to the audience. I just say what I really believe.
And you it's just it's meant to put it out
there so that it gives you something to think about.
(17:58):
And clearly looking at the text line, Wow, gubernerber ninety
five zero four Michael, I do not advocate gratuitous killing.
But does the second strike run amok of the War
Crimes Act if these people are declared terrorists. Yes, this
(18:20):
is my point. It doesn't make any difference whether they're
terrorists or their combatants or their non combatants, their their
their uniformed state enemies from you know, somewhere that's attacking us,
doesn't make any difference. Let me give you an example,
(18:42):
and I think the best example because it also involves
Seal Team six, is the rate on the Osama bin
laden compound in Pakistan. Now they killed. Now, for all
you conspiracy theorists out there, Oslama been louden still alive.
I don't believe that. But they they go in, they
(19:03):
raid the house, they start working their way all through
the house. They're they're taking fire as they raid the compound.
They're taking fire as they get into the house inside
the compound, and then they finally make their way up
and I forget whether it was the second or third
floor or even higher, but at some point they finally
find that that debris strewn office that that ubl had
(19:30):
where he had his little computer and all his papers,
everything all stacked up and he was armed and he
fired at them, and they took him out completely justified.
Now they're taking fire. They make their way up in
the house, inside the bin laden compound. They get to
where he is in his office, and he's playing Solitaire
(19:53):
on his computer, or he's watching the security cameras, or
he's busy trying to you know, shred documents, or he's
taking a whiz, he's doing whatever he's doing, whatever he is,
he's not a threat to them at that point. If
they had killed him Sealed Team six, even though that
is a terrorist, would have been a War Crimes Act.
(20:17):
So the moniker or the labeling as someone as a
terrorist or a non terrorist is immaterial under Title eighteen
then twenty one to fifty nine, Mike, we are not
at war. Therefore is a War Crimes Act in effect, Yes,
don't don't. Don't misuse the term war because we are engaged.
(20:41):
The War Crimes Act applies to military operations, whether those
are under a declaration of war or those are under
the powers of the executive to protect the national security
of the United States. Take them to get MO. Let
me finish the message. Take them to get Mo. No,
(21:02):
just more fodder for the Democrats to manipulate must think
taxpayer relief shots. We just can't house everyone that won't
comply with Geneva rules written mostly by the people that
hate Americans. Well then we if that is one I
disagree because two, that's not It's not just the Geneva Conventions.
(21:22):
Remember I've cited Title eighteen Congress, and if you don't
like this, it's fine, they'll get me wrong. You can
choose to like it or not like it. But Congress
has codified the Geneva and Hay Conventions into the Criminal
Code of the United States of America. It's just simply
(21:44):
a crime. If what occurred occurred under the facts as
I described them, then it would be a war crime.
And it's it's not because I disagree with trying to
intercede and well up these drug boats. I'm actually in
favor of that. So I think we need to just recognize.
(22:09):
There's one more I want to get to. This is
Guber number seventy two sixty seven. You raise a great
point that I disagree with questioning the second strike. Well,
I'm not on one side of the world. Putin sends
missiles into apartment buildings, killing women and children. The media
give this a whole hum. We maybe kill two surviving
(22:32):
Narco terrorists and the media is all over it. Do
the media think that the two survivors should have been
rescued and given paid for attorneys to sue us? I
don't give a rats ask what the media thinks. I'm
dealing in the real world, and I don't judge what
we should or should not do based on what some
(22:54):
thug in Moscow makes a decision to do or not do.
That's the kind of what about ism that I think
is wrong.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
I think sometimes what about ism is absolutely appropriate, and
I think what about ism used very stringently is actually
a good thing. It's it's just comparing apples to apples.
Oh you when to talking about what ibson? What about this?
And what about that? I think that's legitimate. But to
say because Putin's doing something bad that then we shouldn't
(23:27):
care about the War Crimes Act. We're better than that,
and it has nothing to do with the media. I
don't give a rat sass what the media thinks. What
I care about is that we adhere to the rule
of law. And if you don't like the War Powers Act,
and if you don't like Now, first of all, my
(23:48):
interpretation is subject to dispute. People can argue both sides
of this. I happen to fall on the side that
just like ubl IF Seal Team six inside the compound
had gotten to the third or fourth floor, whichever one
it was, I just don't remember, and had found Osama
(24:09):
bin Laden sitting there and he was not immediately a threat.
They had to take him in to custody. They had
to take him back to the aircraft carrier, and then
he would have ended up in Gitmo. He would not
have ended up in a federal court. In fact, we
may have sitt him to a black opsite in you know,
(24:32):
some country where he'd never been heard from again. So
don't don't conflate the word terrorists with this. Now, text
line is blowing up. I think this is this is great.
Eight ninety four nine war crimes. Then riddled me this
(24:55):
when Sheriff Judd Grady Judd was asked why they shot
the purp was shot sixty eight times, as the response
was because that's all the ammunition we had, or we
would have shot him more. Uh. First, let let's think
about taxpayer relief shots. If a cop shoots someone and
(25:18):
it's not justified the cop and have we have cases
in Colorado where a cop has killed an individual it
is determined by a jury of their peers that he
did not have justification for to do so, and he's
held he's been held criminally liable, and they've been put
(25:38):
in jail. So you're you're, you're conflating all these different
things and you really need to separate them. This is
not a taxpayer relief shot. When when Sheriff Grady says
we shot him sixty eight times, we ran out of
AMMO and we was shot him more, that starts with
(26:01):
the presumption that it was a lawful shooting by the popo.
That's why we play that particular sound vibe because one,
I think it's kind of hilarious. Let's see there was
four oh one. Good question, but I'll have to see you,
(26:23):
but I'll do it after the break, Michael.
Speaker 6 (26:26):
If the Europeans try to prosecute Seal Team six under
a War Crimes Act, the United States needs to immediately
withdraw from NATRO in all alliances with European countries.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
That this is not a NATO or a Hague prosecution.
They have nothing to do with this. Everybody's head's exploding
without understanding the nature of what's taking place here. This is,
(27:04):
in my opinion, a violation or could be a violation
of Title eighteen of the United States Criminal Code, which
simply incorporates meaning that Congress looked in nineteen forty nine,
Congress looked at the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention
and said we agree with this, and then years later
(27:27):
they adopted those conventions as part of our own US
Criminal Code. Go look it up in Title eighteen. And
so there's no prosecution from some international organization. This would
be a prosecution by either a judge advocate general through
(27:47):
a courts martial, or it could be a prosecution through
federal district court, a criminal caation federal district court. But
I want to make sure, based on the text lines,
that you understand the difference between a taxpayer relief shot
and or to combat someone who is out of combat,
(28:09):
because these are combat situations. These are not civilian criminal situations.
In fact, I have a friend who is a judge
advocate general who sent me a note and just said,
I really hope you succeed in defining the difference between
what or to combat and tax payer relief shots. And
(28:34):
we both recognize that this is not something that people
think about all the time. But this JAG also has
a little concern about what seems to have happened and
points out that this is law of armed conflict one
oh one. This is like first year LOS stuff for
(28:54):
JAG officers. And I'm trying to lay the groundwork for
you to be prepared when Congress does an investigation and
Republicans and Democrats alike determine that there was a Court
of War Crime Act here, and they refer it to
a US attorney for prosecution, or they refer it back
(29:15):
to d D, or DD itself initiates an investigation, and
DD engages in a court martial because I think there's
a very real possibility of this. Now. Factually, I don't
know the timing or who ordered the second strike, but
(29:39):
the second strike is what bothers me. Let's take a
World War two scene.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
I know that war is hell.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
I'm obviously I've never been in war, but I know,
based on my study that war is hell. But we
have a moral obligation. For example, if if they come
across whether it's World War two, Vietnam and it's a
viet Cong, or it's Korea, or it's in Afghanistan, or
(30:13):
it's in Iraq, I don't care where it is. But
they come across an enemy combatant or an enemy soldier
in uniform or whatever, and they are or to combat,
they are out of combat. It would be a war
crime act for a US soldier to just shoot that soldier,
(30:35):
that non combatant, non combatant or combatant or enemy soldier.
It would be a war crime to just whom just
shooting eli. I hate to bring that up, but because
that's too emotionally laden, does that ring a bell with anybody?
Speaker 1 (30:56):
You see?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
I think what we're all so sick and tired of
drug dealers everybody else. But in this if if those
drug dealers were on American soil and they were caught
dealing and an FBI agent or a local yocal cop
(31:19):
just saw them dealing, and they didn't point a gun
at the at the law enforcement officer, they didn't threaten
the law enforcement officer, but the law enforcement officer said,
oh there's a drug dealer, boom and just takes them out.
That would be a bad taxpayer relief shot. Now you
take those that scenario and put it over here where
(31:42):
we have a narco terrorist and some have been killed,
but some of some of us have survived. They're there
or to combat, they are out of combat. They're not
a threat to Sealed Team six at all, and yet
somebody up to chain of command somewhere ordered a second
strike to kill them. I think that's a violation of
(32:04):
the UH. That's that's a violation that that's a war crime. Now,
that's all factually, that's all fact dependent, meaning that I'm
just trying to prepare you for the likelihood that either
a congressional investigation, a military investigation, or a criminal investigation
(32:28):
could indeed find that this action was illegal. I want
you to be prepared for that.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.