"Don't Give up the Ship"

[RDKirk]

What if they are politicians themselves? Maybe they have a good grasp of the law. Maybe they don't. We may get a chance to find out. Certainly it's an arguable point since, in this specific case, a judge has prevented the Guard from doing anything. For now.

Chicago — Two Illinois National Guard members told CBS News they would refuse to obey federal orders to deploy in Chicago as part of President Trump's controversial immigration enforcement mission — a rare act of open defiance from within the military ranks.​

"It's disheartening to be forced to go against your community members and your neighbors," said Staff Sgt. Demi Palecek, a Latina guardswoman and state legislative candidate from Illinois's 13th District. "It feels illegal. This is not what we signed up to do."

Both Palecek and Capt. Dylan Blaha, who is running for Congress in the same district, described growing unease among Guard members after the White House federalized 500 troops – including members of the Illinois and Texas National Guard – to secure federal immigration facilities and personnel in the Chicago area.

A federal judge on Wednesday delayed the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago indefinitely, until a final ruling is issued or the Supreme Court rules on the matter.

Federal orders to deploy to Chicago are not illegal.

I expect those two Guardsmen will be full civilians soon. Their public statements place them, as an NCO and as an officer, in violation of a couple of UCMJ articles.

 

[Vambram]

No they aren't. To understand what is legal and illegal is why they are consulting attorneys prior.

I'm sorry but you appear to not understand how the military chain of command and the UCMJ works.

 

[wing2000]

Outside counsel can't say anything more than "try it and see."

As I said before, the White House lawyers will ensure that the orders are not "manifestly illegal."

White House lawyers? Surely you jest.

In any case, a "manifestly illegal order" is an order that is obviously illegal to anyone. Examples would include:

- harming civilians
- falsifying officlal documents
- assault, robery or other such crimes

 

[durangodawood]

There's no such thing as a "clearly illegal orders while the court takes its time." That's an absurdium.
.....

Yeah thats why I said the principle doenst include it.

There are situations where a person would be reasonably capable of judging an order illegal - even if theres also other tricky edge cases.

 

[RDKirk]

White House lawyers? Surely you jest.

In any case, a "manifestly illegal order" is an order that is obviously illegal to anyone. Examples would include:

- harming civilians
- falsifying officlal documents
- assault, robery or other such crimes

You guys keep creating hypotheticals which are already prohibited by law. So, yeah, something that is already prohibited by law is "obviously illegal."

But a deployment of troops to Chicago or a declaration of war on Venezuela is not already prohibited by law. If you want it to be an "illegal order," it must be against an existing law.

For that matter, "harming civilians" is also not prohibited by law. If civilians were to open fire on military that had been deployed to Chicago, returning fire is not prohibited by law.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah thats why I said the principle doenst include it.

There are situations where a person would be reasonably capable of judging an order illegal - even if theres also other tricky edge cases.

An order is not illegal unless it defies an existing law. That's what the troops are taught "illegal order" means.

 

[Say it aint so]

Outside counsel can't say anything more than "try it and see."

As I said before, the White House lawyers will ensure that the orders are not "manifestly illegal."

What comes out of the white house is the concern. Listen, we banter back and forth about the expected protection provided by white house lawyers or whether they have anything to be concerned about. Yet it's clear there are some wearing the uniform who are concerned and just don't want to be put in that position. It's sad the commander in chief rather than reassuring he would never put them in the position of doing anything illegal, instead screams for treason and the the death penalty. It's sad.

 

[Say it aint so]

I'm sorry but you appear to not understand how the military chain of command and the UCMJ works.

That's irrelevant. The fact they are seeking counsel is despite both.