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

[Zincwarrior]

To show intent, to show conspiracy ...

Conspiracy to commit...legality!

 

[d0gbreath]

I wonder how many of the 6 will agree to an interview. It's not like they can be forced.

 

[Rawley]

If their statements were constitutionally protected speech, there can be no conspiracy.

You don’t need an investigation to determine that.

I'm sure that would be their defense. I wish them luck with that.

 

[dudmuck]

Wait, there is actually someone dumb enough to SERIOUSLY believe that it's ILLLEGAL to say that soldiers can refuse ILLIGAL orders?

Damn.

Duty to disobey
Legal requirement: Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), service members are required to obey lawful orders but must disobey unlawful ones.
Constitutional basis: The military oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president or any other individual leader.
Definition of unlawful orders: An order is unlawful if it is contrary to the Constitution, laws, or international human rights standards. Examples include an order to commit a crime or target civilians.
Consequences of compliance: A service member cannot use the excuse of "following orders" to justify actions that are illegal. This is known as the "Nuremberg defense" and is not a valid legal defense.

 

[Marener]

I'm sure that would be their defense. I wish them luck with that.

Was the video constitutionally protected speech?

 

[Rawley]

I wonder how many of the 6 will agree to an interview. It's not like they can be forced.

??? They would rely on their 5th Amendment rights? That's certainly not a good look.

 

[Rawley]

Was the video constitutionally protected speech?

That would be for a judge to ultimately decide, but I'd say no. Their intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States seem clear to me.

 

[d0gbreath]

??? They would rely on their 5th Amendment rights? That's certainly not a good look.

No, they could simply decline to attend. They're not being arrested.

 

[Marener]

That would be for a judge to ultimately decide, but I'd say no. Their intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States seem clear to me.

What the said is consistent with the UCMJ. How could consider that to impair the discipline of the military?

 

[Zincwarrior]

I wonder how many of the 6 will agree to an interview. It's not like they can be forced.

ONe them should, with a bunch of media and cameras and blaring camera lights. Every time the agent asks a question they could respond with "My God Man don't you realize there's a WAR on!" fun times.

 

[Zincwarrior]

??? They would rely on their 5th Amendment rights? That's certainly not a good look.

Trump liked it.
No, just refuse, without stating a reason. Send a letter. Spill coffee and spaghetti sauce on it first. Its the little things that show you care.

 

[WEATHER53]

Duty to disobey
Legal requirement: Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), service members are required to obey lawful orders but must disobey unlawful ones.
Constitutional basis: The military oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president or any other individual leader.
Definition of unlawful orders: An order is unlawful if it is contrary to the Constitution, laws, or international human rights standards. Examples include an order to commit a crime or target civilians.
Consequences of compliance: A service member cannot use the excuse of "following orders" to justify actions that are illegal. This is known as the "Nuremberg defense" and is not a valid legal defense.

And no one was told to shoot a surrendering soldier in the head which is explicit and illegal. The lib loons are offering that soldiers have the right to sift through far more discretionary issues and make their own decision. The don’t have such and no military could operate that way

 

[Rawley]

What the said is consistent with the UCMJ. How could consider that to impair the discipline of the military?

LOL So how about if they said "No member of the US military should take their sniper rifle, go on a roof, and try to take out the President when he's at his next outdoor appearance. Under no circumstances should anyone in the military do that."

No problem, right? Consistent with the UCMJ, right?

 

[Zincwarrior]

LOL So how about if they said "No member of the US military should take their sniper rifle, go on a roof, and try to take out the President when he's at his next outdoor appearance. Under no circumstances should anyone in the military do that."

No problem, right? Consistent with the UCMJ, right?

Yes it is consistent. Stupid but consistent.

 

[Marener]

LOL So how about if they said "No member of the US military should take their sniper rifle, go on a roof, and try to take out the President when he's at his next outdoor appearance. Under no circumstances should anyone in the military do that."

No problem, right? Consistent with the UCMJ, right?

That would be a pretty weird thing to say. It’s so weird that it might lead to sone inferences that are different here.

But I don’t see how it could be illegal anyway.

Members of the military are already seeking advice on the legality of orders.

Military personnel seek legal advice on whether Trump-ordered missions are lawful

Military service personnel have been seeking outside legal advice about some of the missions the Trump administration has assigned them. The strikes against alleged drug traffickers and deployments to U.S. cities have sparked a debate over their legality. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Frank...

www.pbs.org

Is that illegal?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s your buddies Hamas technique confused child.

No, those are facts, on the record, that your Orange God created.

Bow and show some respect to Dear Leader, cultist.

 

[dudmuck]

And no one was told to shoot a surrendering soldier in the head which is explicit and illegal. The lib loons are offering that soldiers have the right to sift through far more discretionary issues and make their own decision. The don’t have such and no military could operate that way

 

[M14 Shooter]

They don't think about their consequences.

They think they are above the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please cite the charge.


If I were them I would tell them I am a Congressmen, cite the Constitution protections for Congress...

Congressmen are not protected from criminal investigation/prosecution.

 

[toobfreak]

Time to subpoena the communications of these suspects. If they conspired to cause a mutiny within the US military, they deserve to be severely punished.

Scheduling interviews? Why doesn't the FBI just show up at their house pounding on their door like everyone else?

• Any of those six who served in the military are already in hot water.
• The others should be checked out as seditionists and commies. Let's see the FBI command all of their contact lists, email, and phone records just as they did with the GOP.