FBI scheduling interviews with 6 lawmakers who encouraged military members to refuse 'illegal orders'

[Seymour Flops]

There is no plea bargaining, just like I said. You are talking pretrial agreements, so a court martial never actually takes place. There is no trail for them to bargain with. Just a finding. Have you ever attended a court martial?

That's what a plea bargain is in civilian life also. Now you are just stubbornly refusing to admit you are wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it's a fact. It's also why not you, or any other MAGAt here, or Hegseth, or anyone else can even imagine any.

 

[schmidlap]

The UCMJ is fine.

It tells service members that orders are presumed to be lawful and that they would have the burden of proof if they decided to disobey an order on the grounds that they felt is was unlawful.

If the lawmakers had said that, I would applaud them.

The patriots who reminded service members of the Uniform Code of Military Justice's recognition that illegal orders need not be obeyed said nothing that is at odds with the law.

Under the UCMJ, service members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.

Following such orders can lead to criminal liability.

A recent federal court decision has put the issue of “illegal orders” back in the spotlight. On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that former President Trump’s deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that restricts the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement. ​

Article 92: Can Service Members Refuse an Illegal Order? - The Law Office of Peter Kageleiry, Jr.

Lessons from the LA Guard Ruling for Article 92 A recent federal court decision has put the issue of “illegal orders” back in the spotlight. On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that former President Trump’s deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and active-duty Marines...

www.ucmjlaw.com

​

 

[j-mac]

18 U.S.C. § 2387 is a federal statute that prohibits activities intended to interfere with the U.S. military.Specifically, it makes it a crime to advise or cause insubordination, disloyalty, or refusal of duty in the armed forces, obstruct recruiting or enlistment, or to distribute written materials advocating these actions.

 

[DonGlock26]

well, where is your evidence of that crime? What is the probable cause? You have NOTHING!

I'm not in charge of the investigation or any grand jury. This will not happen tonight.
Their video and statements are probable cause.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The patriots who reminded service members of the Uniform Code of Military Justice's recognition that illegal orders need not be obeyed said nothing that is at odds with the law.

Under the UCMJ, service members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.

Following such orders can lead to criminal liability.

A recent federal court decision has put the issue of “illegal orders” back in the spotlight. On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that former President Trump’s deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that restricts the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement. ​

Article 92: Can Service Members Refuse an Illegal Order? - The Law Office of Peter Kageleiry, Jr.

Lessons from the LA Guard Ruling for Article 92 A recent federal court decision has put the issue of “illegal orders” back in the spotlight. On September 2, 2025, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that former President Trump’s deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and active-duty Marines...

www.ucmjlaw.com

​

How many service members have been convicted of following an order that turned out not to be lawful?

Be specific about the number or do not even answer.

 

[DonGlock26]

I won't hold my breath!

No one cares.

 

[Billiejeens]

Please cite the charge.


If I were them I would tell them I am a Congressmen, cite the Constitution protections for Congress and tell them to practice their diving lessons in the nearest lake.

The constitutional protections are in Congress.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's what a plea bargain is in civilian life also. Now you are just stubbornly refusing to admit you are wrong.

Plea bargaining in the civilian world usually takes place during a trial, not before. Haven't you ever watched Law and Order?

In my 23 years' service, I never heard of a plea bargain, simply because they do not happen.

 

[DonGlock26]

How are they going to uncover anything? You have no evidence, and in reality, no way of obtaining more until you get a grand jury which would likely be filled with Democrats. How do you think that will work out for you?

More wasted time and taxpayer dollars. Is that what you want?

With an investigation.

We'll see what the investigation uncovers.

 

[Delldude]

I am waiting for someone to quote it. No one has of yet.

I'd bet it's been cited here somewhere.
Something about retired/civilian comments.

 

[Delldude]

Embarrassing people is not an appropriate function of the DoJ.

True, leave that to the Democrats.

 

[DonGlock26]

Plea bargaining in the civilian world usually takes place during a trial, not before. Haven't you ever watched Law and Order?

In my 23 years' service, I never heard of a plea bargain, simply because they do not happen.

Plea bargains generally occur to avoid going to trial. You are wrong.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Plea bargaining in the civilian world usually takes place during a trial, not before. Haven't you ever watched Law and Order?

In my 23 years' service, I never heard of a plea bargain, simply because they do not happen.

Stop getting your legal education from fictional TV shows.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm not in charge of the investigation or any grand jury. This will not happen tonight.
Their video and statements are probable cause.

Probable cause of what? Everything contained in that video was factual, like it or not. You cannot make up a conspiracy to commit treason or sedition out of the video! That's all you have and will have. This is the best example of a nothing burger I have ever seen. Trump's administration is stupid for even trying to do anything with this. They should have addressed it and let it go!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Stop getting your legal education from fictional TV shows.

View attachment 1187733

View attachment 1187731
View attachment 1187732

You obviously missed my emoji! All I did was waste your time with my sarcasm. Mission accomplished.

 

[DonGlock26]

In my 23 years' service, I never heard of a plea bargain, simply because they do not happen.

Say what???

Former Parris Island drill instructor avoids court-martial under plea deal

Staff Sgt. Jose Lucena-Martinez has been punished administratively.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

 

[schmidlap]

How many service members have been convicted of following an order that turned out not to be lawful

Be specific about the number or do not even answer.

How is that relevant? Is a law invalid if no one had previously violated it?

The UCMJ is clear that illegal orders need not be obeyed.

Yes, there have been instances of refusal to obey illegal orders. Historically, military personnel have faced dilemmas where they refused orders that were manifestly illegal, such as those directed to target civilians. For example, during the Nuremberg trials, it was established that soldiers could refuse orders that violated the law, and this principle is reinforced in contemporary military law, such as Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which states that service members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders. Recent discussions have highlighted the importance of refusing illegal orders, especially in light of current legal and ethical challenges faced by military personnel. ​

factually.co+2

 

[Seymour Flops]

How is that relevant? Is a law invalid if no one had previously violated it?

You don't remember Comey telling us that even thought Hillary Clinton's email servers violated numerous criminal statute, she could not be prosecuted for them because no one else had been?

The UCMJ is clear that illegal orders need not be obeyed.

Yes, there have been instances of refusal to obey illegal orders. Historically, military personnel have faced dilemmas where they refused orders that were manifestly illegal, such as those directed to target civilians. For example, during the Nuremberg trials, it was established that soldiers could refuse orders that violated the law, and this principle is reinforced in contemporary military law, such as Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which states that service members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders. Recent discussions have highlighted the importance of refusing illegal orders, especially in light of current legal and ethical challenges faced by military personnel. ​

factually.co+2

It is also clear that orders are presumed to be lawful and that a person's personal philosophy cannot render an order unlawful, and that the burden of proof is on the defendant if he or she uses that defense.

 

[DonGlock26]

Probable cause of what? Everything contained in that video was factual, like it or not. You cannot make up a conspiracy to commit treason or sedition out of the video! That's all you have and will have. This is the best example of a nothing burger I have ever seen. Trump's administration is stupid for even trying to do anything with this. They should have addressed it and let it go!

A conspiracy to commit sedition and or mutiny.

Probable cause are facts.

It's enough to investigate and use the tools of investigation. I believe the six have been asked to talk to the FBI.
Let's see if they talk to the FBI.