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

[Robert W]

It may be true that a serviceman or servicewoman has a duty to decline to follow an illegal order, but I understand (and don’t know for certain) that the onus is on that service member to prove that the order was, indeed, illegal.

In the civilian side of the criminal justice system, that seems a lot like an “affirmative defense” where the defendant is suddenly the one with a burden of proof.

In the military, though, it seems a whole lot riskier to engage in behavior that would otherwise be deemed “mutiny.”

The 6 Dem politicians are being damn cavalier in suggesting that service members should disobey the orders of a superior without at least qualifying it with a solid caution along those lines. And those politicians don’t even bother to try to point to any orders from the Commander in Chief which are, in fact, allegedly “illegal” orders.

Trump has not issued orders of any sort on this matter.

 

[ColonelAngus]

FFS, you're supposed to moderate! WTF is wrong with this site?

That person is still devastated that Jo Jorgensen lost.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Not answering the question?

You mean about democrats calling for rebellion? Treat them like the guy who posted the text 34433 to vote for Hillary meme.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

I know. Hitler has been on the phone.He is devastated. Maybe I went too far.

So you talk to Hitler?

 

[BackAgain]

They suggested to not obey unlawful orders. So I'll ask you to. What's the problem with that principle?

Identifying an order which is “unlawful.” If charged with “mutiny,” and if they therefore need to prove the alleged unlawfulness of the order, they could be rightly ducked.

As for being "cavalier". What is more cavalier here you think. Saying to military personel that they have a right to refuse to obey unlawful orders, or... the president of the United States saying publicly that six US congressmen deserve death?

Is that what the President actually said? No. So cut it out with your bullshit.

Why is it that there's one person in the world who has no expectation of ever needing to act responsibly?

Maybe someday you’ll grow up.

 

[Leo123]

Look up Abrego Garcia.

2-d. Return from El Salvador achieved, but “no appetite” to restore “status quo ante,” with “defiance and foot-dragging” warranting further relief​

Judge Paula Xinis (Obama appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.)

This case involves the government’s admission that the administration unlawfully sent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite an immigration court order prohibiting removal to that country.

Despite Garcia’s Jun. 6 return to the United States, during a Jul. 7 hearing, Judge Xinis refused to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case, pressed DOJ about whether the indictment and return were used to facilitate compliance with her injunction, and highlighted unresolved production gaps (including the missing arrest warrant) and incomplete compliance with her orders. In a Jul. 23 order granting emergency relief to require Garcia’s return to Maryland pending further proceedings, she noted that, over the prior three months, the government had “disregarded court orders,” displayed “defiance and foot-dragging,” and a “persistent lack of transparency,” warranting further injunctive relief. She found that, despite the first part of her April 4 preliminary injunction (to facilitate Garcia’s release from El Salvador) having been met, the government had shown “no appetite” to fulfill the second part of the injunction—“to restore Abrego Garcia to the status quo ante.” Garcia remained in U.S. Marshals’ custody in Tennessee with an ICE detainer, and the court “shared Plaintiffs’ ongoing concern” that, “absent meaningful safeguards,” he could be removed again “without having restored him to the status quo ante.” Judge Xinis maintained that she would “not hesitate to revisit” broader relief “if Defendants fail to comply with this Order or otherwise attempt to remove Abrego Garcia … without due process.”

Judge Stephanie Thacker (Obama appointee), Judge Robert King (Clinton appointee), Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (Reagan appointee), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1404 (4th Cir.)

Appeal from the district court’s Apr. 10 order directing the government to “take all available steps to facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and to report on steps taken.

On Apr. 17, the Fourth Circuit (Wilkinson, joined by King & Thacker) denied the government’s emergency stay and mandamus, stressing that “‘facilitate’ is an active verb” and that the word’s “plain and active meaning … cannot be diluted” as the government urged. Judge Wilkinson wrote that “‘[f]acilitation’ does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation … in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns.” It warned that “if today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens … ?” Emphasizing comity, the Judge Wilkinson added:


Recalling President Eisenhower’s example—his insistence that the Executive must support and ensure enforcement of federal court decisions—Judge Wilkinson quoted: “unless the President did so, anarchy would result.”

The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration Litigation

Comprehensive study of court cases involving Trump administration and the basis for courts no longer giving a "presumption of regularity."

www.justsecurity.org

The courts have no jurisdiction over immigration.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes and charge in this context is that you meant that that was the charge that "in your opinion" should be levied. Hence the second sentence that you ignored. Again nobody is presuming or would logically presume you have that power.

Again, "language games"
This is not my first rodeo. And changing the meaning of what you said is a common tactic when people like you can't keep their story straight for more than 2 posts.

No, you are clearly an expert at language games. I've remained consistent throughout so I'm not concerned with your 'charge'.

Have a nice day.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump has not issued orders of any sort on this matter.

Facts simply don’t matter to our leftwing kooks here at USMB.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So you talk to Hitler?

Trump gave me his number.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump gave me his number.

You’re a retard.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What happens to trump if the killings are deemed to be illegal? Conviction in abstentia in the Hague? Impeachment? Resignation?

What killings?

 

[forkup]

Is that what the President actually said? No. So cut it out with your bullshit.

Yes

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

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Trump gave me his number.

^^^ This should offend Jewish people.

Comparing Trump to Hitler make Hitler not seem as bad.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Trump gave me his number.

At least try to make this funny...

Here's a hint...or more like a proposition:

Go one day without focusing or discussing the mighty President Donald J. Trump.

I know.

After over 10 years that's a nearly insurmountable challenge.

But that says a lot about where your mind is, now doesn't it?

And it ain't well.

 

[Mac1958]

Not answering the question?

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.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

At least try to make this funny...

Here's a hint...or more like a proposition:

Go one day without focusing or discussing the mighty President Donald J. Trump.

I know.

After over 10 years that's a nearly insurmountable challenge.

But that says a lot about where your mind is, now doesn't it?

And it ain't well.

When he's not talking about Trump he's advocating giving sexually provocative books to small children

Democrats = perverted freaks

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You first. Does the military have the right to disobey unlawful orders?

Yes. But none have been given. To suggest that orders are unlawful, would be sedition. So far, the liberal DEMs have couched their language to not cross the line ... yet!

 

[forkup]

Maybe someday you’ll grow up.

Maybe someday your principles will not be, "how much turd polishing am I willing to do for the orange God king." But then again. I'm not very hopeful.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That's been my question from the beginning: How many of them don't understand what they're enabling, and how many of them know EXACTLY what they're enabling and WANT it?

They wet themselves over Schumer telling Gorsuch "We're coming for you," but Trump says six members of Congress should be hanged and excuses, excuses, excuses from the cult.

 

[Darkwind]

Indeed. Any soldier can say "That order is illegal and i will not obey it."

They can say it.

They had best be able to defend it. Their career, retirement, and very freedom depend upon it.

Care to roll those dice?