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

[Seymour Flops]

Ok. Let’s get specific.

The military is deployed at the border

Illegals are seen crossing the border.

They are clearly civilians and clearly unarmed

Orders are given to shoot them

Is that a legal order?

Good example!

I believe that it would be a legal order.

Armed or unarmed, people illegally crossing our border are a threat to the freedom, lives, health and safety of Americans, and therefore they should be repelled with force.

But that specific is debatable, and I cannot predict how courts would rule.

Hypothetically, if an officer gave such an order and a soldier refused to obey it, the soldier could make a case for it being an unawful, and not be found guilty. On the other hand, if the officer were charged with issuing an unlawful order, I believe the officer would not be found guilty.

That is how such questions should be discussed.

It is pure political shoemanship, for the Democrats to create a straw man by inventing out a whole cloth a scenario in which Trump issues illegal orders in order to make military service members hesitant to abide by his orders.

 

[Marener]

The real center of the debate is what is legal and what is not. If each individual military personnel is left to decide on their own what they consider legal or not, and thus which orders to follow or not, we will have a real mess on our hands. Politics will undoubtedly come into play into what they decide is “legal”, which is exactly the approach Democrats are taking now.

It’s pretty obvious you don’t want to talk about Trump wanting to hang members of Congress for saying something that is perfectly accurate and consistent with the law.

Do you want to talk about the press secretary completely lying about what the members of Congress said?

Hard to have a discussion when we can’t even start off on the same reality.

 

[pknopp]

Good example!

I believe that it would be a legal order.

Armed or unarmed, people illegally crossing our border are a threat to the freedom, lives, health and safety of Americans, and therefore they should be repelled with force.

But that specific is debatable, and I cannot predict how courts would rule.

Hypothetically, if an officer gave such an order and a soldier refused to obey it, the soldier could make a case for it being an unawful, and not be found guilty. On the other hand, if the officer were charged with issuing an unlawful order, I believe the officer would not be found guilty.

That is how such questions should be discussed.

It is pure political shoemanship, for the Democrats to create a straw man by inventing out a whole cloth a scenario in which Trump issues illegal orders in order to make military service members hesitant to abide by his orders.

I would love to see the military start saying "hang on a minute, is this right"?

 

[berg80]

Good example!

I believe that it would be a legal order.

Armed or unarmed, people illegally crossing our border are a threat

If it were a legal order trump would have given it long ago.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course not. It was in response to the extra judicial killings in the Caribbean and the illegal occupation by US troops of selected US cities. It was probably directed at ICE agents as well.

So the Democrats are giving legal advice to service members to refuse orders to attack
speed boats driven by drug gangs toward the united states to refuse even go to U.S. cities?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Weird that Republicans said "the military must obey illegal orders."

Can you post the video of them saying that?

You are calling them traitors for saying it. Your Orange Jesus called for them to be murdered for saying it.

 

[kyzr]

Wrong thread buddy.

Your thread title is a lie. No Republican ever said to obey an illegal order.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I would love to see the military start saying "hang on a minute, is this right"?

How many American service people could die in that minute?

 

[TNHarley]

Are you a nihilist?

No retard. Im a realist.

 

[berg80]

So the Democrats are giving legal advice to service members to refuse orders to attack
speed boats driven by drug gangs toward the united states to refuse even go to U.S. cities?

Why can't you phrase it accurately? It was a reminder to military personnel they can refuse to follow an illegal order. Full stop.

 

[pknopp]

How many American service people could die in that minute?

Let's see........

Ten Years after the al-Awlaki Killing: A Reckoning for the United States’ Drones Wars Awaits - Modern War Institute

None.

Kunduz hospital attack in depth | MSF

On 3 October 2015, US airstrikes destroyed our trauma hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 42 people

www.msf.org

None.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/16/politics/us-military-drug-boat-strike-21

None.

 

[berg80]

No retard. Im a realist.

I'm not so sure about that if you think the UCMJ doesn't matter. Perhaps you are developmentally challenged.

 

[berg80]

I would love to see the military start saying "hang on a minute, is this right"?

Good. That's the point. Maybe the next time a soldier is told to target a boat in the Caribbean with a drone he or she will ask themselves, "Wait, is this legal?"

 

[TNHarley]

I'm not so sure about that if you think the UCMJ doesn't matter. Perhaps you are developmentally challenged.

The code matters. But just because it exists, doesnt mean they wont break it. As I said, cops break their oath constantly. So do politicians.
If deploying the NG to cities was illegal, and they did it, what do you think it means, dufus?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I would love to see the military start saying "hang on a minute, is this right"?

Nothing wrong with that question. But the time to ask it is before you go into the service, not in the middle of a conflict when lives depend on coordinated action.

 

[pknopp]

Good. That's the point. Maybe the next time a soldier is told to target a boat in the Caribbean with a drone he or she will ask themselves, "Wait, is this legal?"

Or target an American citizen with assassination.

 

[22lcidw]

Good. That's the point. Maybe the next time a soldier is told to target a boat in the Caribbean with a drone he or she will ask themselves, "Wait, is this legal?"

Presidents Wilson, Truman and Johnson wiped their assess with the UCMJ.

 

[pknopp]

Nothing wrong with that question. But the time to ask it is before you go into the service, not in the middle of a conflict when lives depend on coordinated action.

I posted three examples where it should have (should) happen.

One could point to the entire Iraq War at that.

 

[22lcidw]

Good. That's the point. Maybe the next time a soldier is told to target a boat in the Caribbean with a drone he or she will ask themselves, "Wait, is this legal?"

And FDR did a double wipe.

 

[Billiejeens]

I think Lesh just wants to know if the 6 Democrats deserve to die.

Not for this.