"Don't Give up the Ship"

[RocksInMyHead]

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.

That, I think, is a reasonable criticism of this statement.

 

[RDKirk]

Do multiple violations of the Posse Comitatus Act count?

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both"

18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus

www.law.cornell.edu

Or deployment of National Guard in violation of the terms of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 ?

Whenever--

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-12406/

But it is not up to your interpretation that such has happened.

That's up to Congress and the Court.

The military must obey orders that are not "manifestly illegal." The “manifestly illegal” threshold is high: Something that is obviously in direct violation of existing statutes. If legal interpretation is plausible--and the White House lawyers will make sure it is plausible--it will fall below the manifestly illegal threshold.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

And this is Generation Z we're talking about. Even Millennials are exasperated with Gen Z.

 

[BCP1928]

But it is not up to your interpretation that such has happened.

That's up to Congress and the Court.

The military must obey orders that are not "manifestly illegal." The “manifestly illegal” threshold is high: Something that is obviously in direct violation of existing statutes. If legal interpretation is plausible--and the White House lawyers will make sure it is plausible--it will fall below the manifestly illegal threshold.

Nobody is supposing that a crisis of this kind will involve individual decisions by rank-and-file soldiers.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

The order would not have gone that far down the chain unless Pentagon lawyers had already determined the order was not "manifestly illegal."

The "manifestly illegal" bar is very high. The specific order that unit commander received would not itself be "manifestly illegal." A mere deployment order will almost never be "manifestly illegal" at that level.

The president wouldn't explicitly order them to "fire on civilians." But the president might order them into a situation where firing on civilians could happen...and that order would not have been "manifestly illegal."

For instance, as earlier mentioned, the military was ordered to support federal integration court orders. White segregationists could conceivably have fired upon the soldiers, and the soldiers would have responded accordingly.

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 Argentina come down.

The "political support" of a handful of Congresscritters would be irrelevant after the fact. The matter would be in the hands of the Judiciary. There is nothing those politicians could do for those troops, except contribute to their "Go Fund Me."

 

[RDKirk]

Nobody is supposing that a crisis of this kind will involve individual decisions by rank-and-file soldiers.

But that is who these Congresscritters were appealing to.

Sorry, folk, but the military can't save you from unwise voting decisions.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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

Idk. I mean I kind of enjoy it. It’s so easy to do. If I were some big famous person I’d be trying to push his buttons every single day.

 

[wing2000]

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

...and the POTUS gets a free pass? Trump can literally say anything because and be ignored...because? Is this the new standard for Executive behavior?

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?

They would face the consequences of their decision.

 

[BCP1928]

The order would not have gone that far down the chain unless Pentagon lawyers had already determined the order was not "manifestly illegal."

The "manifestly illegal" bar is very high. The specific order that unit commander received would not itself be "manifestly illegal." A mere deployment order will almost never be "manifestly illegal" at that level.

The president wouldn't explicitly order them to "fire on civilians." But the president might order them into a situation where firing on civilians could happen...and that order would not have been "manifestly illegal."

For instance, as earlier mentioned, the military was ordered to support federal integration court orders. White segregationists could conceivably have fired upon the soldiers, and the soldiers would have responded accordingly.

What about a presidential order to invade Venezula? Because that is what I think the Democrats were concerned with, more so than concerned with domestic use of the military--though that might come into it s well, should such an invasion result in mass protests.

The "political support" of a handful of Congresscritters would be irrelevant after the fact. The matter would be in the hands of the Judiciary. There is nothing those politicians could do for those troops, except contribute to their "Go Fund Me."

The could stand up to their responisbility.

 

[wing2000]

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.

Legally, you're correct.

"The only way to find out whether an order is legal or illegal is to obey, or refuse to obey, and see what is decided after the fact by a military court, a civilian court reviewing a military decision, or a war crimes or human rights tribunal. As a servicemenber subject to the UCMJ, you obey or disobey any order at your peril – which is, of course, one of the risks of enlistment. You can consult a civilian lawyer with expertise in military and international law, but they are very unlikely to be able to give you a definitive answer as to whether a particular order is likely to be found to be legal or illegal."

FAQ on Refusing Illegal Orders - Military Law Task Force

This FAQ (drafted by members of the MLTF) can also be found in printable PDF format here: Illegal Orders FAQ – 11NOV2025 DoD Instruction 1325.06 permits a servicemember to possess a single copy of this document. FAQs on refusing illegal orders Version 2 – released November 11, 2025 Do I have...

nlgmltf.org

 

[wing2000]

But it is not up to your interpretation that such has happened.

That's up to Congress and the Court.

The military must obey orders that are not "manifestly illegal." The “manifestly illegal” threshold is high: Something that is obviously in direct violation of existing statutes. If legal interpretation is plausible--and the White House lawyers will make sure it is plausible--it will fall below the manifestly illegal threshold.

Would shooting civilians be "manifestly illegal"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...and the POTUS gets a free pass? Trump can literally say anything because and be ignored...because? Is this the new standard for Executive behavior?

No...

But the military members aren't the ones who decide whether a president's orders are unconstitutional.

That would be judicial branch's job to take up a case and determine that.

Our system of government has levers to pull to "keep the president in-line"

Encouraging rank-in-file servicemen to disobey orders isn't one of those levers.

 

[wing2000]

Encouraging rank-in-file servicemen to disobey orders isn't one of those levers.

I don't agree with your characterization. They are calling on service members to follow their oath of office.

“We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

“Know that we have your back, because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.

 

[RDKirk]

Our system of government has levers to pull to "keep the president in-line"

Although, and this is something we're discovering today, those levers are few and short.

 

[durangodawood]

No...

But the military members aren't the ones who decide whether a president's orders are unconstitutional.

That would be judicial branch's job to take up a case and determine that.

Are you sure?

I've always heard that service members themselves have the responsibility to resist clearly illegal orders. They dont have to wait for it to go to trial. You are ordered "kill that p.o.w. over there".... then what?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are you sure?

I've always heard that service members themselves have the responsibility to resist clearly illegal orders. They dont have to wait for it to go to trial. You are ordered "kill that p.o.w. over there".... then what?

But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".

This isn't a case where a commanding officer is overtly telling troops to demand to be quartered in private residences without the consent of the homeowner or telling them "go shoot anyone who doesn't agree to be a Christian".

This is stemming from the president federalizing and deploying troops to states where the governors (and local law enforcement at the orders of their governors) are refusing to go along with federal laws (and in some cases, even declaring intent to obstruct federal law enforcement)

Legally speaking, it's still in a state of ambiguity.

As I noted before, there is historical precedent for similar circumstances, most notably, Eisenhower deploying the Airborne division to Arkansas when the governor down there was ignoring federal mandates and obstructing.


So people are trying to depict this as if it's a no-brainer and an easy judgement call that's so obvious that even the legally-uninitiated 19-23 could make it...but it's not.

 

[durangodawood]

But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".

This isn't a case where a commanding officer is overtly telling troops to demand to be quartered in private residences without the consent of the homeowner or telling them "go shoot anyone who doesn't agree to be a Christian".

This is stemming from the president federalizing and deploying troops to states where the governors (and local law enforcement at the orders of their governors) are refusing to go along with federal laws (and in some cases, even declaring intent to obstruct federal law enforcement)

Legally speaking, it's still in a state of ambiguity.

As I noted before, there is historical precedent for similar circumstances, most notably, Eisenhower deploying the Airborne division to Arkansas when the governor down there was ignoring federal mandates and obstructing.


So people are trying to depict this as if it's a no-brainer and an easy judgement call that's so obvious that even the legally-uninitiated 19-23 could make it...but it's not.

I dont believe the video in questions mentions any specific circumstances.

The sense is that the president does not feel constrained by law in his presidential actions (and in fact is not constrained as of recently). And so who knows whats coming down the pike. Its a pro active reiteration of a valuable principle. There is literally nothing about any particular circumstance in the message.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't agree with your characterization. They are calling on service members to follow their oath of office.

“We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders; you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

“Know that we have your back, because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.

Were the servicemen not following their oath or something? If that wasn't an issue, then seems like an odd thing to randomly make a video montage about.

I think the implications of their public statement was pretty clear, and they're attempting to use the servicemen as pawns in their political games based on their own personal interpretation of the circumstances


Consider a hypothetical
If montage of Republicans (specifically, ones known for being anti-vaccine) made the same kind of video during covid with just a few words replaced:

“We want to speak directly to members of the healthcare community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their doctors, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our doctors and nurses against patients.

“Like us, you all swore an Hippocratic oath to do no harm. Right now, the threats to our health aren’t just coming from viruses, but from some medications as well. Our oath is clear: You can refuse to administer things that could cause harm; you must refuse things that could cause harm. No one has to dispense medication that could harm someone. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the Hospital, the GP's office, or the pharmacy, your vigilance is critical.”


Now... what would your feedback on that be?

If someone tried to defend it by playing coy and saying "Hey, we didn't say anything specifically about vaccines... we're just reminding doctors about their Hippocratic oath, and to be on the look out...but for nothing in particular...just in general"

We'd all rightfully call it out as a transparent load of baloney.
(and one that's a pandering technique that runs the risk of doctors and nurses getting fired because they mistakenly believed that a congressmen could protect them from losing their medical license)

 

[BCP1928]

But the circumstances in question here aren't "clearly illegal orders".

This isn't a case where a commanding officer is overtly telling troops to demand to be quartered in private residences without the consent of the homeowner or telling them "go shoot anyone who doesn't agree to be a Christian".

This is stemming from the president federalizing and deploying troops to states where the governors (and local law enforcement at the orders of their governors) are refusing to go along with federal laws (and in some cases, even declaring intent to obstruct federal law enforcement)

Legally speaking, it's still in a state of ambiguity.

As I noted before, there is historical precedent for similar circumstances, most notably, Eisenhower deploying the Airborne division to Arkansas when the governor down there was ignoring federal mandates and obstructing.


So people are trying to depict this as if it's a no-brainer and an easy judgement call that's so obvious that even the legally-uninitiated 19-23 could make it...but it's not.

You're right, it's a difficult decision. Admiral Holsey resigned rather than make such a decision. Is it legal to kill unidentified civilians on the high seas by blowing up boats not headed for America? Presumably whoever replaced him think it is not manifestly illegal, but where does that leave subordinates?

Now on to the big question: The President appears to be on the verge of ordering an invasion of Venezuela--without reference to Congress or the Constitution or even a well-defined military objective. There is nothing to stop him but the refusal of the military to go along with it. If the officers don't have the balls to stand up to him then it will be up to the enlisted men to refuse.

 

[BCP1928]

Were the servicemen not following their oath or something?

No, but it appears likely that they may soon be unequivocally ordered to do so