December 1, 2025 • 32 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
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, Hey, 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. Whatever the
hell that is sounds like an art Bell thing to me. Anyway,
what's next? Six foot chickens and switch blades running them
(00:25):
up in the supermarkets? Avengines, the centuries, the poultry genocide. Maybe,
just maybe I should consider switching to decaf?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
What do you think, nod 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.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Then we can put it. Can we put the art
Bell theme song? That wouldn't show up on the podcast either,
would it? No?
Speaker 1 (00:45):
It wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
By the way, who are you?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I have no idea, I'm not here right now.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
You're not? Are you still in bed?
Speaker 1 (00:51):
I wish a great dam Broncos win.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
For the When did the game fight? When did the
game actually end?
Speaker 5 (01:02):
Sometime between ten and thirty and ten thirty. I really
don't know for certain. So were you watching it in
bed or you did you go to bed afterwards.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Watching another big screen on the main floor.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Okay? And then so do the games 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. That's it.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
That's what 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 a
change in the overtime rules. Well, I can tell you're
(02:51):
in 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.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
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
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 the other number,
I'm not going to see it. Three three one zero three.
(03:46):
The first three I want to talk about today is
probably not going to make many of you happy, and
I'm not I'm not doing this just you know, this
Monday after the holiday, and I'm just out here to
piss people off. No, that's not it at all. But
I've been bothered by something happened back in septe It happened.
It was a US military operation on September two, twenty
(04:09):
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. 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
(04:30):
the Caribbean or the Caribbean? Yes, okay, they were targeting
one of those suspected narcotics speedboats in 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,
(04:51):
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 not infamous, the famous
Seal Team six. It disabled the vessel, it killed most
on board, but left two survivors clinging, clinging to the wreckage.
(05:14):
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 six originally disabled the vessel
killed almost everybody, blew up the boat. You know, you've
(05:35):
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, killing the two survivors. Now,
(05:56):
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, these narco terrorists, from bringing
(06:17):
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 quote leave no survivors,
(06:40):
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 act w It's all
across the country are chiming in. I say, by partisan
(07:04):
you know you know I don't. I'm not a big
fan of bypartisanship. 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
okay with that if it still complies with your principles.
(07:26):
I emphasize that it's by partisanship in this situation because
both Republicans and what people that I would consider to
be extraordinarily conservative Republicans and Democrats, which obviously 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 about Title eighteen
(08:08):
on this program recently, because that's the Criminal Code. 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
(08:30):
death results. The Act applies extra territorially if the 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
(08:53):
the offender? Is the offender the President? Is it? 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
(09:16):
the aircraft carriers? But was the drone being operated 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
(09:37):
killing of persons that are protected under the Geneva Convention Convention,
So obviously we have the factual question here 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 found at twenty four
(09:58):
to forty one sub paragrap in non international arm conflicts,
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
(10:18):
part in no active part in hostilities well, such as
those who are the French phrase or to combat out
of combat. Now, the Department of 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
(10:43):
grave breaches, and it incorporates the Article three conventions from
the Geneva Convention and the Hay Convention, so those are
all part of our statute. It states that persons incapacitated
by shipwreck are in a helpless state and may not
(11:05):
be the object, may not be made the object of attack. Now,
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.
(11:28):
But they were still in the water near where the
boat was blown up. So I think they are probably
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
(11:51):
that would be yet, but prosecution would require intent. In
other words, you would have to know the protected status
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
(12:12):
for Courts Martial. So when you think about we are
a party to the four nineteen forty nine Geneva Conventions
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
(12:34):
those or to combat out of combat individuals a stagger,
a status that triggers immunity from attack. This really bugs
me because it appears that under both US federal law
and Geneva conventions, I think this strike may I'm not
(12:55):
saying it is, but it troubles me because one, I
have the greatest respect for Seal Team six I've met.
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 the innder Secretary of Home Mandsecurity, and I've
(13:17):
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
Bin Laden compound in Pakistan? Amazing stuff. You really ought
to go watch it. I'm concerned about this because one
(13:38):
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 individuals clinging
to their lives. So they're clearly not a threat to
anybody to no one who ordered the second strike, whoever
(14:02):
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,
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.
(14:25):
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
chain and command that you know went up and down
the chain about you know, And why would you Why
(14:45):
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.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
So.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
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 our rules
(15:23):
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 you're hearing
(15:46):
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 second strike? Were
(16:07):
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, imprison them
(16:28):
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 hanged to life at
the taxpayer relief shot, because now we don't have to
put up with the GEMO, all the fees and all
that stuff to support human life, and they're done and
we don't.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
It's it's good for America.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
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 nuwe 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 hope your
check cleared this this month if it didn't speak to
(17:29):
mister Redbeard, he's the chief financial officer. That's program.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
It's safe for elections, it's safe for your check.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Well 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
(17:57):
think about. 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,
(18:20):
this 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
(18:41):
an example, 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 Laden
still alive. I don't believe that. But they they go in,
(19:03):
they 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 screwn office that Ubl
(19:29):
had 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
(19:50):
where he is in his office, and he's playing Solitaire
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's that.
He's not a threat to them at that point. If
they had killed him Sealed Team six, even though that
(20:10):
is a terrorist, would have been a War Crimes Act.
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,
(20:34):
don't don't misuse the term war, because we are engaged.
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
(20:55):
of the United States. Take them to get MO. Let
me finish the message. Take them to get Mo. No,
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 if that is one I disagree,
(21:16):
because two, that's not It's not just the Geneva Conventions.
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 like it or not like it. But Congress has
codified the Geneva and Hay Conventions into the Criminal Code
(21:40):
of the United States of America. It's just simply 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 blow
up these drug boats. I'm actually in favor of that.
(22:04):
So I think we need to to just recognize there's
one more I want to get to. This is Gouver
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
(22:27):
this a whole hum. We maybe kill two surviving 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
(22:50):
should or should not do based on what some thug
in Moscow makes a decision to do or not do.
That's the kind of what about ism that I think
is wrong. Now. I think sometimes what about ism is
absolutely appropriate, and I think what about ism used very
(23:11):
stringently is actually a good thing. It's it's just comparing
apples to apples. Oh you when to talking about what is?
And 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 care about the War Crimes Act.
We're better than that, and it has nothing to do
(23:33):
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 interpretation is subject to dispute. People
can argue both sides of this. I happen to fall
(23:55):
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 bin Laden sitting there and he
was not immediately a threat. They had to take him
(24:17):
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 sent him to
a black opsite in you know, some country where he
had never been heard from again. So don't don't conflate
(24:40):
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 when Sheriff Judd
Grady Judd was asked why they shot the purp was
(25:01):
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 tax payer
relief shots. If a cop shoots someone and it's not
justified the cop. And we have we have cases in
(25:24):
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 in jail.
So you're you're, you're conflating all these different things and
(25:44):
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 the presumption
that it was a lawful shooting by the popo. That's
(26:07):
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,
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 tax payer 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 DD, or DD itself initiates an investigation and d
D 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. I know that war is hell.
I'm obviously I've never been in war, but I know,
based on my study that war is hell. But we
(29:59):
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
it's in Iraq, I don't care where it is. But
they come across an enemy combatant or an enemy soldier
(30:22):
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,
that non combatant, non combatant or combatant or enemy soldier.
It would be a war crime to just hmm, just
(30:44):
shooting Melie. I hate to bring that up, but because
that's too emotionally laden, does that ring a bell with anybody?
You see? I think what we're all so sick. I'm
tired of drug dealers everybody else. But in this if
(31:05):
if those drug dealers were on American soil and they
were caught dealing and an FBI agent or a local
yocal cop just saw them dealing, and they they didn't
point a gun at the at the law enforcement officer,
(31:26):
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 we have a narco terrorist and
some have been killed, but some of some of us
(31:47):
have survived. They're there or to combat, they are out
of combat, they're not a threat to Seal 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 the US that's a violation that
(32:09):
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 could indeed find that this action
(32:32):
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, Hey, 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. Whatever the
hell that is sounds like an art Bell thing to me. Anyway,
what's next? Six foot chickens and switch blades running them
(00:25):
up in the supermarkets? Avengines, the centuries, the poultry genocide. Maybe,
just maybe I should consider switching to decaf?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
What do you think, nod 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.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Then we can put it. Can we put the art
Bell theme song? That wouldn't show up on the podcast either,
would it? No?
Speaker 1 (00:45):
It wouldn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
By the way, who are you?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
I have no idea, I'm not here right now.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
You're not? Are you still in bed?
Speaker 1 (00:51):
I wish a great dam Broncos win.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
For the When did the game fight? When did the
game actually end?
Speaker 5 (01:02):
Sometime between ten and thirty and ten thirty. I really
don't know for certain. So were you watching it in
bed or you did you go to bed afterwards.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Watching another big screen on the main floor.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Okay? And then so do the games 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. That's it.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
That's what 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 a
change in the overtime rules. Well, I can tell you're
(02:51):
in 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.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
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
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 the other number,
I'm not going to see it. Three three one zero three.
(03:46):
The first three I want to talk about today is
probably not going to make many of you happy, and
I'm not I'm not doing this just you know, this
Monday after the holiday, and I'm just out here to
piss people off. No, that's not it at all. But
I've been bothered by something happened back in septe It happened.
It was a US military operation on September two, twenty
(04:09):
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. 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
(04:30):
the Caribbean or the Caribbean? Yes, okay, they were targeting
one of those suspected narcotics speedboats in 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,
(04:51):
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 not infamous, the famous
Seal Team six. It disabled the vessel, it killed most
on board, but left two survivors clinging, clinging to the wreckage.
(05:14):
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 six originally disabled the vessel
killed almost everybody, blew up the boat. You know, you've
(05:35):
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, killing the two survivors. Now,
(05:56):
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, these narco terrorists, from bringing
(06:17):
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 quote leave no survivors,
(06:40):
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 act w It's all
across the country are chiming in. I say, by partisan
(07:04):
you know you know I don't. I'm not a big
fan of bypartisanship. 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
okay with that if it still complies with your principles.
(07:26):
I emphasize that it's by partisanship in this situation because
both Republicans and what people that I would consider to
be extraordinarily conservative Republicans and Democrats, which obviously 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 about Title eighteen
(08:08):
on this program recently, because that's the Criminal Code. 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
(08:30):
death results. The Act applies extra territorially if the 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
(08:53):
the offender? Is the offender the President? Is it? 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
(09:16):
the aircraft carriers? But was the drone being operated 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
(09:37):
killing of persons that are protected under the Geneva Convention Convention,
So obviously we have the factual question here 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 found at twenty four
(09:58):
to forty one sub paragrap in non international arm conflicts,
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
(10:18):
part in no active part in hostilities well, such as
those who are the French phrase or to combat out
of combat. Now, the Department of 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
(10:43):
grave breaches, and it incorporates the Article three conventions from
the Geneva Convention and the Hay Convention, so those are
all part of our statute. It states that persons incapacitated
by shipwreck are in a helpless state and may not
(11:05):
be the object, may not be made the object of attack. Now,
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.
(11:28):
But they were still in the water near where the
boat was blown up. So I think they are probably
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
(11:51):
that would be yet, but prosecution would require intent. In
other words, you would have to know the protected status
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
(12:12):
for Courts Martial. So when you think about we are
a party to the four nineteen forty nine Geneva Conventions
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
(12:34):
those or to combat out of combat individuals a stagger,
a status that triggers immunity from attack. This really bugs
me because it appears that under both US federal law
and Geneva conventions, I think this strike may I'm not
(12:55):
saying it is, but it troubles me because one, I
have the greatest respect for Seal Team six I've met.
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 the innder Secretary of Home Mandsecurity, and I've
(13:17):
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
Bin Laden compound in Pakistan? Amazing stuff. You really ought
to go watch it. I'm concerned about this because one
(13:38):
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 individuals clinging
to their lives. So they're clearly not a threat to
anybody to no one who ordered the second strike, whoever
(14:02):
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,
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.
(14:25):
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
chain and command that you know went up and down
the chain about you know, And why would you Why
(14:45):
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.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
So.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
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 our rules
(15:23):
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 you're hearing
(15:46):
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 second strike? Were
(16:07):
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, imprison them
(16:28):
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 hanged to life at
the taxpayer relief shot, because now we don't have to
put up with the GEMO, all the fees and all
that stuff to support human life, and they're done and
we don't.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
It's it's good for America.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
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 nuwe 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 hope your
check cleared this this month if it didn't speak to
(17:29):
mister Redbeard, he's the chief financial officer. That's program.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
It's safe for elections, it's safe for your check.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Well 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
(17:57):
think about. 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,
(18:20):
this 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
(18:41):
an example, 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 Laden
still alive. I don't believe that. But they they go in,
(19:03):
they 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 screwn office that Ubl
(19:29):
had 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
(19:50):
where he is in his office, and he's playing Solitaire
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's that.
He's not a threat to them at that point. If
they had killed him Sealed Team six, even though that
(20:10):
is a terrorist, would have been a War Crimes Act.
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,
(20:34):
don't don't misuse the term war, because we are engaged.
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
(20:55):
of the United States. Take them to get MO. Let
me finish the message. Take them to get Mo. No,
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 if that is one I disagree,
(21:16):
because two, that's not It's not just the Geneva Conventions.
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 like it or not like it. But Congress has
codified the Geneva and Hay Conventions into the Criminal Code
(21:40):
of the United States of America. It's just simply 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 blow
up these drug boats. I'm actually in favor of that.
(22:04):
So I think we need to to just recognize there's
one more I want to get to. This is Gouver
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
(22:27):
this a whole hum. We maybe kill two surviving 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
(22:50):
should or should not do based on what some thug
in Moscow makes a decision to do or not do.
That's the kind of what about ism that I think
is wrong. Now. I think sometimes what about ism is
absolutely appropriate, and I think what about ism used very
(23:11):
stringently is actually a good thing. It's it's just comparing
apples to apples. Oh you when to talking about what is?
And 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 care about the War Crimes Act.
We're better than that, and it has nothing to do
(23:33):
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 interpretation is subject to dispute. People
can argue both sides of this. I happen to fall
(23:55):
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 bin Laden sitting there and he
was not immediately a threat. They had to take him
(24:17):
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 sent him to
a black opsite in you know, some country where he
had never been heard from again. So don't don't conflate
(24:40):
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 when Sheriff Judd
Grady Judd was asked why they shot the purp was
(25:01):
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 tax payer
relief shots. If a cop shoots someone and it's not
justified the cop. And we have we have cases in
(25:24):
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 in jail.
So you're you're, you're conflating all these different things and
(25:44):
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 the presumption
that it was a lawful shooting by the popo. That's
(26:07):
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,
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 tax payer 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 DD, or DD itself initiates an investigation and d
D 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. I know that war is hell.
I'm obviously I've never been in war, but I know,
based on my study that war is hell. But we
(29:59):
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
it's in Iraq, I don't care where it is. But
they come across an enemy combatant or an enemy soldier
(30:22):
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,
that non combatant, non combatant or combatant or enemy soldier.
It would be a war crime to just hmm, just
(30:44):
shooting Melie. I hate to bring that up, but because
that's too emotionally laden, does that ring a bell with anybody?
You see? I think what we're all so sick. I'm
tired of drug dealers everybody else. But in this if
(31:05):
if those drug dealers were on American soil and they
were caught dealing and an FBI agent or a local
yocal cop just saw them dealing, and they they didn't
point a gun at the at the law enforcement officer,
(31:26):
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 we have a narco terrorist and
some have been killed, but some of some of us
(31:47):
have survived. They're there or to combat, they are out
of combat, they're not a threat to Seal 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 the US that's a violation that
(32:09):
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 could indeed find that this action
(32:32):
was illegal. I want you to be prepared for that.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
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.