John Sisino
@smarmyeod.bsky.social
Former glorified trash man, current glorified forklift operator. Happily crosscut.
Don’t be ninjerin’ nobody who don’t need no ninjerin.’
Istud dolebitis.
Don’t be ninjerin’ nobody who don’t need no ninjerin.’
Istud dolebitis.
Two things:
1. Talk to any experienced normie JAG & they’ll tell you that this is the current state of military law.
2. A weak version of QI for good faith, snap decisions 100% makes sense. That’s *not* the current doctrine, though.
1. Talk to any experienced normie JAG & they’ll tell you that this is the current state of military law.
2. A weak version of QI for good faith, snap decisions 100% makes sense. That’s *not* the current doctrine, though.
November 29, 2025 at 4:51 AM
Two things:
1. Talk to any experienced normie JAG & they’ll tell you that this is the current state of military law.
2. A weak version of QI for good faith, snap decisions 100% makes sense. That’s *not* the current doctrine, though.
1. Talk to any experienced normie JAG & they’ll tell you that this is the current state of military law.
2. A weak version of QI for good faith, snap decisions 100% makes sense. That’s *not* the current doctrine, though.
*or having an idle to worship or any number of other cognitive biases to indulge.
November 29, 2025 at 12:51 AM
*or having an idle to worship or any number of other cognitive biases to indulge.
Reposted by John Sisino
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" wasn't "havoc" in just the modern sense of chaos, it was a particular order that was understood as heinous even in Shakespeare's day, authorization after battle was over to slaughter and pillage, both debilitated enemies and noncombatants, without restraint.
November 28, 2025 at 8:48 PM
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" wasn't "havoc" in just the modern sense of chaos, it was a particular order that was understood as heinous even in Shakespeare's day, authorization after battle was over to slaughter and pillage, both debilitated enemies and noncombatants, without restraint.
That comment is 0% hindsight. It’s exactly what a broad, heterodox swath of prosecutors, former prosecutors, & defense attorneys were saying *at the time.*
Y’know, for people who were interested in something other than having their priors confirmed.
Y’know, for people who were interested in something other than having their priors confirmed.
November 28, 2025 at 10:59 PM
That comment is 0% hindsight. It’s exactly what a broad, heterodox swath of prosecutors, former prosecutors, & defense attorneys were saying *at the time.*
Y’know, for people who were interested in something other than having their priors confirmed.
Y’know, for people who were interested in something other than having their priors confirmed.
She could have had a felony conviction in 2021-22 on a simple false statements case.
But she cared more about other things than she did about getting a conviction.
But she cared more about other things than she did about getting a conviction.
November 28, 2025 at 3:58 PM
She could have had a felony conviction in 2021-22 on a simple false statements case.
But she cared more about other things than she did about getting a conviction.
But she cared more about other things than she did about getting a conviction.
It’s not like the kind of *presumptively illegal* order they’re trained & obligated to disobey. Ex: an order to “shoot those peaceful protesters” or “beat up this detainee.”
November 28, 2025 at 3:29 PM
It’s not like the kind of *presumptively illegal* order they’re trained & obligated to disobey. Ex: an order to “shoot those peaceful protesters” or “beat up this detainee.”
This is not something that, as a practical matter, means that these troops get to ignore orders & go home.
If they do, they *will* be court martialed &—even if the deployment is ultimately held unlawful all the way through the appeals process—may not be a successful defense at that trial.
If they do, they *will* be court martialed &—even if the deployment is ultimately held unlawful all the way through the appeals process—may not be a successful defense at that trial.
November 28, 2025 at 3:29 PM
This is not something that, as a practical matter, means that these troops get to ignore orders & go home.
If they do, they *will* be court martialed &—even if the deployment is ultimately held unlawful all the way through the appeals process—may not be a successful defense at that trial.
If they do, they *will* be court martialed &—even if the deployment is ultimately held unlawful all the way through the appeals process—may not be a successful defense at that trial.
I think we can all share this one.
November 28, 2025 at 2:04 PM
I think we can all share this one.
☝🏼☝🏼☝🏼
*Also, there’s the whole slew of “illegal order as a technical matter of law but not the kind of order that PFC Snuffy (or even their company commander) can be expected to know is an illegal order that they have to follow as presumptively legal.”
*Also, there’s the whole slew of “illegal order as a technical matter of law but not the kind of order that PFC Snuffy (or even their company commander) can be expected to know is an illegal order that they have to follow as presumptively legal.”
November 28, 2025 at 2:00 PM
☝🏼☝🏼☝🏼
*Also, there’s the whole slew of “illegal order as a technical matter of law but not the kind of order that PFC Snuffy (or even their company commander) can be expected to know is an illegal order that they have to follow as presumptively legal.”
*Also, there’s the whole slew of “illegal order as a technical matter of law but not the kind of order that PFC Snuffy (or even their company commander) can be expected to know is an illegal order that they have to follow as presumptively legal.”
You can’t just quit the military like a normal job, dingus.
November 28, 2025 at 12:44 PM
You can’t just quit the military like a normal job, dingus.
A response too ignorant for even a barracks lawyer to utter. 🙄
November 28, 2025 at 12:42 PM
A response too ignorant for even a barracks lawyer to utter. 🙄
What’s the conscientious objection to milling around Krispy Kreme & picking up trash?
Please answer with the specificity that would be required as a defense at a court martial.
Please answer with the specificity that would be required as a defense at a court martial.
November 28, 2025 at 12:41 PM
What’s the conscientious objection to milling around Krispy Kreme & picking up trash?
Please answer with the specificity that would be required as a defense at a court martial.
Please answer with the specificity that would be required as a defense at a court martial.
They would’ve but they knew they’d punch the drill sergeant.
November 28, 2025 at 12:34 PM
They would’ve but they knew they’d punch the drill sergeant.