"Don't Give up the Ship"

[Akita Suggagaki]

Not to the degree that it will be for some random enlisted guy who decides to refuse an order and gets court marshalled and kicked out of the service, and then has to face the social backlash back home without the luxuries of 24/7 security and gated neighborhoods like Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin have the privilege of having.

Does anyone featured in that video montage unilaterally have the power to legally protect a servicemen who refuses an order from their commanding officer?

If the answer to that is "No" (which it is), then they shouldn't be encouraging them to go rogue.

That'd be like me going down to the accounts payable department at my company, and encouraging them to disobey their boss over a personal beef I have with him. I can't protect them if he decides to fire them, so it'd be unethical and irresponsible of me to encourage that behavior, as I won't be the one who faces the the brunt of the consequences of it.

Part if what I meant was I don’t think they had the forethought of his reaction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That failed -

Not yet. The order has been stayed, but the ruling has not been overturned.

 

[Yttrium]

Cool. Now I want the Justice Department to obey the president and charge these congresspeople with sedition, just to see how hard the judges laugh at it.

 

[eclipsenow]

President Trump has never issued an illegal order to the military.

And yet his use of the National Guard is before the Supreme Court, and he's having the military blow up anonymous, unidentified boats off the coast of Venezuela.

I've served. I've had the legal command lectures. It's not hard!

Disobey un-lawful commands.

Did poor Mr Trump read this too late and not register the "un" bit? Unlawful?

It's just embarrassing to watch him melt down every 5 minutes over some perceived sleight to his NPD

 

[Vambram]

And yet his use of the National Guard is before the Supreme Court, and he's having the military blow up anonymous, unidentified boats off the coast of Venezuela.

I've served. I've had the legal command lectures. It's not hard!

Disobey un-lawful commands.

Did poor Mr Trump read this too late and not register the "un" bit? Unlawful?

It's just embarrassing to watch him melt down every 5 minutes over some perceived sleight to his NPD

Nevertheless, President Trump has not issued any unlawful orders to the military.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Not yet. The order has been stayed, but the ruling has not been overturned.

It is not breaking law. That is the fail
No soldier in his right mind would think it was an unlawful order.

Try again?

Why did they make the video??

 

[wing2000]

Interpreting whether or not an order from a commander-in-chief to the military is unconstitutional is rarely is something so simple and clear cut that a 19-23 year old kid can make an accurate on-the-spot judgment call.

It is rare and frankly, has not been on the minds of the military until this President. And I think you underestimate the abilities of a 19-23 year old. If they are ordered to take actions against American citizens on American soil, I'm certain a few will correctly conclude the order is illegal.

 

[wing2000]

If the answer to that is "No" (which it is), then they shouldn't be encouraging them to go rogue.

Reminding U.S. military members of their legal obligations under the U.S. Consitution is not encouraging them "to go rogue."

 

[wing2000]

Why did they make the video??

I already provided an answer. Say, why don't you watch the video if you really want to know.

 

[wing2000]

Is there a chance, just a slight chance, that their video was specifically intended for drawing this reaction of out him and the predictable "Truth Social Frenzy" that would undoubtedly go along with it?

Obviously it was foolish for him to take the bait (and doesn't demonstrate level-headed leadership)

....and yet, you go after the Congress members while the POTUS suggest they should be prosecuted for sedition?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Then he should have nothing to worry about.

He could be worried about a bunch of service members refusing lawful orders because they were mislead by democrat politicians into believing they were not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is not breaking law. That is the fail

What are you babbling about? The judge ruled the actions were illegal "unless and until Defendants satisfy the requirements of a valid constitutional or statutory exception, as defined herein, to the Posse Comitatus Act."

 

[Say it aint so]

President Trump has never issued an illegal order to the military.

The reason why that video was created is because members of our military were consulting attorneys on what they may or may not be culpable for given Trump's authoritarianism.

 

[Say it aint so]

Nevertheless, President Trump has not issued any unlawful orders to the military.

He has mused about shooting protesters. Now, that was his last campaign where there were still people there erecting guardrails. There are no longer any guard rails in the either the executive branch, or the current GOP controlled congress. I personally would like to think the idea of not following illegal orders from any president, what is literally part of the military code itself, is something that all commanders of all branches stress. But to Trump, what he should be echoing "yes, that's right, that's the code" is treason deserving the the death penalty. I mean, he did after all say he is not sure if he is obligated to uphold the constitution and the very pledge he took as president.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

....and yet, you go after the Congress members while the POTUS suggest they should be prosecuted for sedition?

Yes, because they're encouraging things that are going to create consequences for younger, more impressionable service members.

 

[Always in His Presence]

J

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Reminding U.S. military members of their legal obligations under the U.S. Consitution is not encouraging them "to go rogue."

It is rare and frankly, has not been on the minds of the military until this President. And I think you underestimate the abilities of a 19-23 year old. If they are ordered to take actions against American citizens on American soil, I'm certain a few will correctly conclude the order is illegal.

...because as I noted, there are certain times where the president is authorized to do that (the example I cited was back when Eisenhower used the 101st Airborne division when a state governor and local police were refusing to go along with desegregation in Arkansas)


So you're suggesting that your average 19-23 year old enlisted person is going to have the legal mind and experience in assessing constitutional case law to know if there's valid grounds for refusal based on case precedent and make a spot judgement call on whether or not a president's order is:

A) invalid due to running afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act
or
B) a valid order based on 10 U.S.C. §§ 332
?

With the current composition of the courts (especially the supreme court), if/when this gets officially decided, it could get interpreted either way.

What do you suppose happens to some random young Sgt. who thought they were doing the right and refused an order (and encouraged his crew to do the same), and it winds up being a case where a court ends up deciding it's B and not A?

 

[RDKirk]

"Should he..."


....to let service members Congress, or at least some members of Congress, has their back.

No, they don't. That is the falseness in their statement.

Congress cannot have their back after the action. There is almost nothing Congress can do for the troop after the fact. After the action, the ball is totally in the hands of the Judiciary.

Congress must act up front, before the action. If they don't want the military to perform an action, Congress must explicitly make that action illegal before the fact ("no _ex post facto_ laws"). Or Congress must take the president to the Supreme Court immediately after he issues orders they don't like (if they signal the intention to do that, the military will drag its feet).

But "have your back" is a false statement that will get young, passionate troops in deep, life-long trouble.

 

[RDKirk]

I wonder if the sedition/treason statute of limitations has run out on all the folks who publicly supported Terry Lakin's refusal of a what-he-wrongly-considered an unlawful order.

Lakin's fault (I can't believe even a medical officer was so stupid) is that a military order does not become illegal even if the president's authority is questionable.

The military officer who ordered Lakin's transfer ("movement" in military terms) gave him a legal order...which he disobeyed. The commission of military officers is from Congress, not the president. That means regardless of the status of the president, each military officer's commission remains valid.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, because they're encouraging things that are going to create consequences for younger, more impressionable service members.

Not really. What they are doing is to remind those young and more impressionable service members is that they can safely follow a unit commander who has rejected an unlawful order (probably on the advice of his attorney.) from higher up. They way I see it, they want the military to know that they have at least some political support if they mutiny should the order to invade Venezuala come down.