Jack H. Roberts
LightNews LightNews
banner
jackroberts77.bsky.social
Jack H. Roberts
@jackroberts77.bsky.social
440 followers 260 following 820 posts
Everything's going to be alright and this too shall pass.

#NoKings
Posts Replies Media Videos
jackroberts77.bsky.social
The rich are losing their minds.
insanity
December 2, 2025 at 8:58 PM
Reposted by Jack H. Roberts
dominicervolina.com
Sharing this everywhere:

bsky.app/profile/domi...
dominicervolina.com Dom Ervolina @dominicervolina.com · 2d
Page 1075 of the DoD Law of War Manual:

"orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal."
Third, when appropriate, service members should ask questions through appropriate channels and consult with the command legal adviser on issues relating to the law of war. 18.3.2 Refuse to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations. In addition, orders should not be construed to authorize implicitly violations of law of war. 18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.2 Similarly, orders to 24 Refer to § 5.10.2 (Responsibility of Commanders for Implementing the Principle of Proportionality in Conducting Attacks). 25 Refer to § 18.7 (Instructions, Regulations, and Procedures to Implement and Enforce the Law of War). 26 Refer to § 18.7.2.3 (Setting Higher Standards as a Matter of Policy). 27 Judgement in Case of Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt, Hospital Ship "Llandovery Castle" (Second Criminal Senate of the Imperial Court of Justice, Germany, Jul. 16, 1921), reprinted in 16 AJIL, 708, 721-22 (1922) ("It is certainly to be urged in favor of the military subordinates, that they are under no obligation to question the order of their superior officer, and they can count upon its legality. But no such confidence can be held to exist, if such an order is universally known to everybody, including also the accused, to be without any doubt whatever against the law. This happens only in rare and exceptional cases. But this case was precisely one of them, for in the present instance, it was perfectly clear to the accused that killing defenceless people in the life-boats could be nothing else but a breach of the law. As naval officers by profession they w
December 1, 2025 at 8:36 PM
jackroberts77.bsky.social
Sure looks like it ...

And even Melania was an escort.
December 2, 2025 at 8:11 PM
jackroberts77.bsky.social
We're on "Weekend at Bernie's" territory now 🤪💀🤣
December 2, 2025 at 8:09 PM
jackroberts77.bsky.social
That's why two survived last time, someone must have disobeyed his order.
December 2, 2025 at 8:07 PM
jackroberts77.bsky.social
In the end Trump provoked it and his admin is even responsible for it: they vetted the attacker, they didn't help him find a job and they didn't keep an eye on him.

Because it's a government of losers and liars.

Just because someone has a shit ton of money doesn't mean they're smart or talented.
December 2, 2025 at 7:34 PM
jackroberts77.bsky.social
Someone must have disobeyed the order last time, that's why two survived.
December 2, 2025 at 7:25 PM
Reposted by Jack H. Roberts
hopelaughlove.bsky.social
December 2, 2025 at 2:18 AM
jackroberts77.bsky.social
Because someone must have refused the order to kill them.
December 2, 2025 at 7:06 PM