Six Democrats urge military members to 'refuse illegal orders' in viral video; Hegseth responds

[Michie]

A group of Democrat lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds released a video Tuesday urging service members to "refuse illegal orders," a message conservatives blasted as a call to defy President Donald Trump and his Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

The one-minute video, posted by Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., and viewed more than 1.6 million times, features six lawmakers invoking their prior service while telling members of the military and intelligence community that "the threats to our Constitution are coming from right here at home."

Slotkin and her colleagues have spent recent weeks introducing legislation to limit President Trump’s ability to deploy National Guard members domestically or launch military action against narcoterrorists without congressional approval.

None of that context appears in the video, titled "Don’t Give Up the Ship," which instead frames the appeal as a warning to military members to "stand up for our laws" and "refuse unlawful orders."

Continued below.

Six Democrats urge military members to 'refuse illegal orders' in viral video; Hegseth responds

Six Democrat veterans in Congress release 'Don't Give Up the Ship' video telling military members they can refuse unlawful orders from commanders.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Vambram]

IMO, those Democratic Party Senators are really urging sedition by our military against President Trump.

 

[Yarddog]

IMO, those Democratic Party Senators are really urging sedition by our military against President Trump.

It doesn't fit into the definition of sedition. It is the duty of the military to refuse to obey an illegal order. They take an oath to the Constitution, not to the President.

 

[Vambram]

It doesn't fit into the definition of sedition. It is the duty of the military to refuse to obey an illegal order. They take an oath to the Constitution, not to the President.

However, those Senators are very clearly implying that President Trump has issued or shall issue illegal orders to the military. I've been in the US military for more than 27 years and I have more trust in President Trump than any other President whom has been my Commander-in-Chief. President Trump has not, and he shall not issue any illegal orders to the military.

 

[Yarddog]

However, those Senators are very clearly implying that President Trump has issued or shall issue illegal orders to the military.

Courts have too.

I've been in the US military for more than 27 years and I have more trust in President Trump than any other President whom has been my Commander-in-Chief.

That your right but plenty of military men have condemned his actions. Of course, we have had much to choose from in the past 27 years, including Trump

President Trump has not, and he shall not issue any illegal orders to the military.

The courts say that he already has.

Court Finds Trump’s Use of Soldiers in Los Angeles Is Illegal

The historic ruling shows how states can push back against the president’s use of the military as a domestic police force.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Vambram]

Courts have too.

That your right but plenty of military men have condemned his actions. Of course, we have had much to choose from in the past 27 years, including Trump

The courts say that he already has.

Court Finds Trump’s Use of Soldiers in Los Angeles Is Illegal

The historic ruling shows how states can push back against the president’s use of the military as a domestic police force.

www.brennancenter.org

That court is wrong and they were overruled by a higher court.

 

[Yarddog]

That court is wrong and they were overruled by a higher court.

And other federal courts have also ruled against Trump use of the Guard in both Portland and Chicago. That case is awaiting action by SCOTUS.

 

[Vambram]

And other federal courts have also ruled against Trump use of the Guard in both Portland and Chicago. That case is awaiting action by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Commander-in-Chief.

 

[Hentenza]

However, those Senators are very clearly implying that President Trump has issued or shall issue illegal orders to the military. I've been in the US military for more than 27 years and I have more trust in President Trump than any other President whom has been my Commander-in-Chief. President Trump has not, and he shall not issue any illegal orders to the military.

Thank you for your service

 

[Yarddog]

SCOTUS will rule in favor of the Commander-in-Chief.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of the US Constitution. They swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President.

 

[Vambram]

SCOTUS will rule in favor of the US Constitution. They swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of the US Constitution. The US Constitution agrees with President Trump and President Trump follows the US Constitution. The President has also sworn an oath to the US Constitution.

 

[RDKirk]

Those Congresscritters merely quoted exactly what all troops are taught in Law of Armed Conflict training every year: "Refuse to obey illegal orders."

You can't criticize them for that unless you want the troops to obey illegal orders.

But I do criticize them.

They know what I hope the troops also gain from their LOAC training: An "illegal order" is an order to break a US law. But that law has to exist. It has to be specifiable. The defense for disobeying an order is being able to identify the specific US law that would be broken.

The problem is that the administration has its own lawyers who will craft the order in such a way that it doesn't exactly break a specific US law.

These Congresscritters issued a statement that I fear will make many young troops (Generation Z, btw) think they have the authority to interpret the Constitution. They do not. The military does not have constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. This statement is very likely to get a lot of troops in serious trouble. A Bad Conduct Discharge with federal felony prison time is highly likely, and that will dog a person for life.

If these Congresscritters don't want the military to execute a certain action, then they must pass a law and get it signed by the president to make that action illegal.

Or they must sue the president and hope the Supreme Court rules that the order is unconstitutional.

Let's say, for instance, a Navy vessel is ordered to carry a CIA team and its equipment to a certain area of the southern Atlantic, and from that position the CIA destroys a Venezuelan fishing vessel. Regardless how conscientious that Navy crew might be, "Transport these persons and equipment to X-location" does not break any existing laws.

Or the Administration's lawyers may construe current laws in such a way as to make destroying that ship appear not to break any US laws. What happens under the table is that Pentagon lawyers quickly scoot over to the Capitol to confer with their contacts in the various Armed Services committees. The military is willing to drag its feet if it looks like Congress will oppose the Administration.

But if Congress is only going to roll over for the president, the military's hands are tied to obeying the president, because the military does not have constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Yarddog]

SCOTUS will rule in favor of the US Constitution. The US Constitution agrees with President Trump and President Trump follows the US Constitution. The President has also sworn an oath to the US Constitution.

Nope. He is about to get slapped down in the Comedy case. He has violated several points of the Declaration of Independence involving Tyrants. He is committing murder by killing occupants of boats in International waters.

 

[Vambram]

Nope. He is about to get slapped down in the Comedy case. He has violated several points of the Declaration of Independence involving Tyrants. He is committing murder by killing occupants of boats in International waters.

Nope. Your post is 100% incorrect.

 

[Yarddog]

Nope. Your post is 100% incorrect.

We'll see.lol