Ret. Navy Commander Issues 5-Alarm Warning: "The Admirals' Revolt Has Begun"

[rangerrebew]

Ret. Navy Commander Issues 5-Alarm Warning: "The Admirals' Revolt Has Begun"
Story by Aurora DeStefano • 14h

 
The U.S. military commander overseeing the Trump administration’s escalating fatal attacks against suspected drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea, Admiral Alvin Holsey, is stepping down, The New York Times reported today. Holsey was in charge of the U.S. Southern Command, overseeing operations in Central and South America.
 
[NOTE: Among the prominent Americans who have questioned the legality of the boat bombing attacks — situations where the U.S. military is essentially delivering death sentences without due process to alleged drug traffickers at sea — is U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Objecting to the idea the U.S. can lawfully kill people suspected of drug trafficking without a trial, Paul said: "the reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is, what if we make a mistake?"]

U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized the timing of Admiral Holsey’s departure, saying: “At a moment when U.S. forces are building up across the Caribbean and tensions with Venezuela are at a boiling point, the departure of our top military commander in the region sends an alarming signal of instability within the chain of command."

Retired U.S. Navy Commander Phil Ehr, who served for 26 years and is now running as a Democrat in the 2026 Florida Congressional 28th District election against the pro-Trump incumbent Republican Rep. Carlos Gimenez, also responded.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ret-navy-commander-issues-5-alarm-warning-the-admirals-revolt-has-begun/ar-AA1OGDyH?ocid=widgetonlockscreen&cvid=68f35f904a84448ca79c8ff2995639d3&ei=23

[rangerrebew]

Obviously, the author doesn't believe the actions are legal either.

[Canuck Conservative]

Among the prominent Americans who have questioned the legality of the boat bombing attacks — situations where the U.S. military is essentially delivering death sentences without due process to alleged drug traffickers at sea — is U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

The problem ... how do you give them "due process" ?

You can't request an extradition, because they're working in cooperation with the Venezuelan Govt.

If you try to arrest them at sea, it will probably injure or kill innocent Navy/Coast Guard personnel ... and even worse if you try to go into Venezuela to get them

So, it's the last-resort option for dealing with people that deliberately import illegal, harmful products

What's the alternative? Do nothing?

[rangerrebew]

What's the alternative? Do nothing?

That is EXACTLY what democrats, rinos, and the MSM want.

[GtHawk]

Poor boo boo Admiral, America has been eliminating drug operations and their traffickers in foreign countries for decades, and unless he is an incredibly stupid Admiral he knows it. I am going out on a limb and say he had an idea that Hegseth maybe had his eye on him and he figured to go out on his own before being fired  and try to cause as much damage to Trump as he could doing it.

[Timber Rattler]

The. U.S. Navy has somewhere between 200-300 admirals on the rolls (nobody seems to know the exact number it seems).  Meanwhile, it has between 250-300 active duty vessels.  I think the Navy can afford to lose some of those spoiled flag officers.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If he doesn't believe they are legal then the honorable thing to do is resign rather than to sabotage from within.

That's my $.02.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In a war, the only due process is to eliminate the opposition.

[The_Reader_David]

What's the alternative? Do nothing?

No: the standard procedure is to demand the boat stop for inspection. If they comply, board the boat, if it, in fact, is carrying contraband (in this case drugs), seize the boat, arrest the crew, bring them back for trial, if it does not, apologize for the inconvenience and send them on their way.

This worked for smugglers and pirates at the time of the American Founding, and it will work today.

If the crew resists with potentially lethal force, applying the same falls under the same sort of exception to due process as the police killing someone who pulled a gun on them.

If they simply try to flee when ordered to stop, damaging the boat with some sort of ordinance that will stop it, but allow the crew a chance to escape in lifeboats, where upon they can be apprehended would be in order.

Blowing up boats, killing all hands, for no reason other than suspicion they are carrying drugs is wrong both morally and Constitutionally.

[MeganC]

Blowing up boats, killing all hands, for no reason other than suspicion they are carrying drugs is wrong both morally and Constitutionally.

The Constitution of the United States applies only within the jurisdiction of the United States.

[Kamaji]

No: the standard procedure is to demand the boat stop for inspection. If they comply, board the boat, if it, in fact, is carrying contraband (in this case drugs), seize the boat, arrest the crew, bring them back for trial, if it does not, apologize for the inconvenience and send them on their way.

This worked for smugglers and pirates at the time of the American Founding, and it will work today.

If the crew resists with potentially lethal force, applying the same falls under the same sort of exception to due process as the police killing someone who pulled a gun on them.

If they simply try to flee when ordered to stop, damaging the boat with some sort of ordinance that will stop it, but allow the crew a chance to escape in lifeboats, where upon they can be apprehended would be in order.

Blowing up boats, killing all hands, for no reason other than suspicion they are carrying drugs is wrong both morally and Constitutionally.

[Wingnut]

Blowing up boats, killing all hands, for no reason other than suspicion they are carrying drugs is wrong both morally and Constitutionally.

Nope.  It is what is right. 

[The_Reader_David]

The Constitution of the United States applies only within the jurisdiction of the United States.

If they are not in our jurisdiction and we are not at war with the country whose boats they are, we have no business blowing up the boats for any reason.

We seem to think our laws (esp. our drug laws, but also our laws governing the handling of classified material -- cf. the treatment of Manuel Noriega and Julian Assange) apply extraterritorially to non-citizens.  If are acting on the basis of our laws, equal protection applies.  If we are acting lawlessly, again there are both moral and Constitutional problems with the action.  Perhaps President Trump can ask for a declaration of war against Venezuela, or at least an explict AUMF resolution so you can argue that this is part of his war powers as President.  Absent that, I stand by my view that there is a Constitutional problem with the actions.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No: the standard procedure is to demand the boat stop for inspection. If they comply, board the boat, if it, in fact, is carrying contraband (in this case drugs), seize the boat, arrest the crew, bring them back for trial, if it does not, apologize for the inconvenience and send them on their way.

This worked for smugglers and pirates at the time of the American Founding, and it will work today.

If the crew resists with potentially lethal force, applying the same falls under the same sort of exception to due process as the police killing someone who pulled a gun on them.

If they simply try to flee when ordered to stop, damaging the boat with some sort of ordinance that will stop it, but allow the crew a chance to escape in lifeboats, where upon they can be apprehended would be in order.

Blowing up boats, killing all hands, for no reason other than suspicion they are carrying drugs is wrong both morally and Constitutionally.

This could backfire spectacularly if we were to make a mistake. Remember we shot down the Iranian airliner in 1980's?

[MeganC]

If they are not in our jurisdiction...

Then they are not protected by our Constitution. And when the US Navy orders them to stop then that's exactly what they should do. Or die.

In any case President Trump is doing nothing that every President before him did.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If they are not in our jurisdiction and we are not at war with the country whose boats they are, we have no business blowing up the boats for any reason.

We seem to think our laws (esp. our drug laws, but also our laws governing the handling of classified material -- cf. the treatment of Manuel Noriega and Julian Assange) apply extraterritorially to non-citizens.  If are acting on the basis of our laws, equal protection applies.  If we are acting lawlessly, again there are both moral and Constitutional problems with the action.  Perhaps President Trump can ask for a declaration of war against Venezuela, or at least an explict AUMF resolution so you can argue that this is part of his war powers as President.  Absent that, I stand by my view that there is a Constitutional problem with the actions.

Obviously you do not know any kid that has died of an overdose due to the drug trade.  I do.

These are dangerous people who care less for taking a life and this is a war we are fighting to save those kids.

You are fighting the Benghazi war that Obama/Clinton fought where you sit back and watch the fight progress and your citizens murdered instead of direct and forceful action. Oh, and that was in our jurisdiction as it was our consulate that was under fire and our ambassador sodomized and murdered.

In war, it is lawyer-speak that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that this might just be some innocents going for a joyride in the gulf. 

There is zero chance that there was not an overly large amount of intelligence already in our possession that confirmed the justification these narco boats to be blown to smithereens.

That is not the way war is fought.

That's how lawyers behave, and I for one have had enough of them taking over our actions and not  saving our kids.

[bigheadfred]

Obviously you do not know any kid that has died of an overdose due to the drug trade.  I do.

These are dangerous people who care less for taking a life and this is a war we are fighting to save those kids.

You are fighting the Benghazi war that Obama/Clinton fought where you sit back and watch the fight progress and your citizens murdered instead of direct and forceful action. Oh, and that was in our jurisdiction as it was our consulate that was under fire and our ambassador sodomized and murdered.

In war, it is lawyer-speak that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that this might just be some innocents going for a joyride in the gulf. 

There is zero chance that there was not an overly large amount of intelligence already in our possession that confirmed the justification these narco boats to be blown to smithereens.

That is not the way war is fought.

That's how lawyers behave, and I for one have had enough of them taking over our actions and not  saving our kids.

Well said.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Obviously you do not know any kid that has died of an overdose due to the drug trade.  I do.

These are dangerous people who care less for taking a life and this is a war we are fighting to save those kids.

You are fighting the Benghazi war that Obama/Clinton fought where you sit back and watch the fight progress and your citizens murdered instead of direct and forceful action. Oh, and that was in our jurisdiction as it was our consulate that was under fire and our ambassador sodomized and murdered.

In war, it is lawyer-speak that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and that this might just be some innocents going for a joyride in the gulf. 

There is zero chance that there was not an overly large amount of intelligence already in our possession that confirmed the justification these narco boats to be blown to smithereens.

That is not the way war is fought.

That's how lawyers behave, and I for one have had enough of them taking over our actions and not  saving our kids.

Yes won't anyone ever think of the children!?

[Fishrrman]

Blow those boats out of the water, Mr. Trump.
Every one of them.
Let the smugglers drown.
After enough of them are killed, others may decline to make the effort.

As for "submersible smugglers" -- those in submarines -- they should be regarded as de factro enemy vessels, to be attacked and destroyed as soon as they can be verified as such.

[GtHawk]

Blow those boats out of the water, Mr. Trump.
Every one of them.
Let the smugglers drown.
After enough of them are killed, others may decline to make the effort.

As for "submersible smugglers" -- those in submarines -- they should be regarded as de factro enemy vessels, to be attacked and destroyed as soon as they can be verified as such.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5aPLXdtbLZ0&pp=ygUXRHJ1Z3J1bm5lciBzdWJtZXJzaWJsZXM%3D

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XnLIThfY2qc&pp=ygUXRHJ1Z3J1bm5lciBzdWJtZXJzaWJsZXM%3D

[Wingnut]

Yes won't anyone ever think of the children!?

Only Liberals....when they are Illegals, furry foreigners or transgender.  Americans? Well, Not so much.