6 Dem congressmen/woman call for INSURRECTION against the trump administration

[forkup]

It appears that they have no idea what they're talking about. I know -- shocking.

Yes, a military person can refuse a direct order if they believe it is unlawful. If they are later court martialed for it, they are liable if they were wrong. But they indeed CAN refuse a direct order if they believe it is unlawful. Fact.

No, no one is saying that Trump has issued any unlawful orders. That, of course, is not the point. That's not what the people in the PSA are saying. So that's just a weak, transparent straw man the Trumpsters are trying to spin.

They want a ******* American Pinochet. Our Founders did not. Our Founders were trying to protect us from EXACTLY what is happening RIGHT NOW. We'll see how it goes.

I think history will judge not just Trump but this SCOTUS harshly.

They have paved the way for a US president to give orders that have such a thin veneer of legitimacy that US military personnel has legal exposure sufficiently grave to make this clarification that they can indeed refuse unlawful orders relevant. Not just that, the fact that this is even a point of contention, and more than that an act of sedition to some, is mind-blowing.

Not to, long ago these same people were saying that it was ridiculous to suggest that Trump would simply order people killed without oversight, yet here we are.

 

[debbiedowner]

You can tell from this thread, chock full of ad hominem responses, that it doesn't matter to them.

It didn't matter to Hitler's soldiers many years later when they were caught and tried for following illegal orders.

 

[Mac-7]

Neither do US courts from what I can see.

Biden and obama ignored court decisions

Trump rails against thw partisan lib judges but nevertheless abides by their rulings

 

[Billiejeens]

In the wake of Charlie Kirk, there were calls by the right to end the violent rhetoric under accusations it was fueling hate and violence (which I agree with). I guess the president didn't get that memo.

Trump doubles down and calls for the execution of Democrat lawmakers. More from Trump claims their words are seditious and states they should be put to death.

For the record, sedition is the advocacy of violence against the government. The lawmakers involved were advocating peace by the government. It's kind of literally the opposition of sedition.

It should also be noted that the maximum punishment under the actual sedition statute is 20 years, it does not include death.

Trump Supports Calls To Hang Political Opponents

President Trump is supporting calls to hang opposition lawmakers. Six Democrats in Congress called upon members of the military to disobey illegal orders to murder alleged drug traffickers on the high seas. Trump responded by posting that these...

www.dailykos.com

You poor thing.

 

[debbiedowner]

Feel free to check what the statute actually is. Post 52 brings you right to it. You will find what it requires to charge someone with it and what the penalty is.

Come back to me when you have done so.

None of them give a shit what the statute says if trump says it then trumplings follow like baby ducks.

 

[BackAgain]

You need to calm down Taz.

Also, give accuracy a chance. You know. Someday.

 

[Robert W]

It appears that they have no idea what they're talking about. I know -- shocking.

Yes, a military person can refuse a direct order if they believe it is unlawful. If they are later court martialed for it, they are liable if they were wrong. But they indeed CAN refuse a direct order if they believe it is unlawful. Fact.

No, no one is saying that Trump has issued any unlawful orders. That, of course, is not the point. That's not what the people in the PSA are saying. So that's just a weak, transparent straw man the Trumpsters are trying to spin.

They want a ******* American Pinochet. Our Founders did not. Our Founders were trying to protect us from EXACTLY what is happening RIGHT NOW. We'll see how it goes.

Watch The American Revolution by Burns on TV.

 

[Billiejeens]

We have never had a President call for the murder of his political opponents before. This man has the military and the nuclear codes.

His political opponents ACTUALLY tried to kill him twice.

Wake up idiot.

 

[forkup]

He also didn’t say that.

Yes, he did.
SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582703277798715

Try your hand at honesty.

Maybe take your own advice.

I've said it before. It's mind-blowing to me that people would lie about something so easily refuted.

I'll give you a pro-tip. The less lies you tell, the fewer you have to remember. I know it's a novel concept, but you can try.

 

[Billiejeens]

Daily kos?

Sorry but the title is already maliciously worded, wrongly I might add. And you cite the one of the most left-wing news sources on the internet? That article has no credibility.

Furthermore, the one thing you don't do is encourage our troops to disobey orders. That's tantamount to calling for an insurrection.

The last thing you do is try to sow discord in the world's most stable and powerful military. Period. Full stop.

Don't expect a warm reaction to calls for our troops to openly defy their CinC without a justifiable, legal reason.

Never an actual mod around when you need one

 

[konradv]

Trump rails against thw partisan lib judges but nevertheless abides by their rulings…

…kicking and screaming!

 

[Astrostar]

Six lawmakers warned the military about Trump — and then he proved their point

A video from Democrats calling on the military to refuse to obey illegal orders pushed the president into a frenzy.

www.ms.now

For making sure that our military knows that they do not have to obey illegal orders from their leaders, the Sec of Defense or the president. Be respectful about it, say "No Sir or No Mam, that order is illegal, and therefore I am not Constitutionally bound to obey it." You are protected by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ.

Now we all know that the president and his Sec of Defense, not being the brightest crackers in the barrel, will threaten you with all sorts of dire consequences if you refuse to obey an illegal order. But, stand firm, the courts will back you up. It might pay to remind them of the Nuremberg trials after WWII.

 

[debbiedowner]

It appears that they have no idea what they're talking about. I know -- shocking.

Yes, a military person can refuse a direct order if they believe it is unlawful. If they are later court martialed for it, they are liable if they were wrong. But they indeed CAN refuse a direct order if they believe it is unlawful. Fact.

No, no one is saying that Trump has issued any unlawful orders. That, of course, is not the point. That's not what the people in the PSA are saying. So that's just a weak, transparent straw man the Trumpsters are trying to spin.

They want a ******* American Pinochet. Our Founders did not. Our Founders were trying to protect us from EXACTLY what is happening RIGHT NOW. We'll see how it goes.

You would think with so many of these guys in thread that have said they were in the military (which I now doubt) they would have remembered being told that in boot camp. I was.

 

[Billiejeens]

What law is illegal

None of them could name one.

 

[Billiejeens]

Our troops swore an oath to the Constitution and they are legally required to disobey any order that would violate the Constitution or the UCMJ. It can also be argued that those same troops are to abide by international laws and treaties of which the US is party and therefore obligated to disobey orders that would cause any of those laws or provisions to be violated.

And?

 

[konradv]

Six lawmakers warned the military about Trump — and then he proved their point

A video from Democrats calling on the military to refuse to obey illegal orders pushed the president into a frenzy.

www.ms.now

For making sure that our military knows that they do not have to obey illegal orders from their leaders, the Sec of Defense or the president. Be respectful about it, say "No Sir or No Mam, that order is illegal, and therefore I am not Constitutionally bound to obey it." You are protected by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ.

Now we all know that the president and his Sec of Defense, not being the brightest crackers in the barrel, will threaten you with all sorts of dire consequences if you refuse to obey an illegal order. But, stand firm, the courts will back you up. It might pay to remind them of the Nuremberg trials after WWII.

Brave people. We thank them for their service.

 

[forkup]

None of them could name one.

Post 161 leads you to a legal review. It doesn't just say what order was illegal but why.

 

[Billiejeens]

Post 161 leads you to a legal review. It doesn't just say what order was illegal but why.

No it doesn't

 

[Harry Dresden]

Six lawmakers warned the military about Trump — and then he proved their point

A video from Democrats calling on the military to refuse to obey illegal orders pushed the president into a frenzy.

www.ms.now

For making sure that our military knows that they do not have to obey illegal orders from their leaders, the Sec of Defense or the president. Be respectful about it, say "No Sir or No Mam, that order is illegal, and therefore I am not Constitutionally bound to obey it." You are protected by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ.

Now we all know that the president and his Sec of Defense, not being the brightest crackers in the barrel, will threaten you with all sorts of dire consequences if you refuse to obey an illegal order. But, stand firm, the courts will back you up. It might pay to remind them of the Nuremberg trials after WWII.

people in the military already know this....

 

[buttercup]

ChristisKing, is what he said in that clip false? If so, take it up with him, not me.

(I'm guessing you're going to say he was just joking. Maybe, but ever heard of "it's funny because it's true"?)