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

[Vambram]

P

It shouldn't be. If you voted for Trump and support his illegal actions, you would be just as guilty ad he is.

A superior orders a soldier to engage in war crimes, such as:

Targeting civilians intentionally.
Torturing prisoners of war.
Looting or pillaging property.
A commanding officer orders personnel to suppress lawful protests in violation of First Amendment rights.
Violations of International Laws

It is a service member's duty to disobey unlawful orders. You can be court marshaled for obeying them.

President Donald Trump has not issued ANY illegal orders to the military. On the other hand, those Democratic Senators are encouraging the military to disobey the chain of command.

 

[Yarddog]

P

President Donald Trump has not issued ANY illegal orders to the military.

In your opinion.

On the other hand, those Democratic Senators are encouraging the military to disobey the chain of command.

Nope. Not in the slightest. They didn't tell them to disobey lawful orders. They correctly told them to disobey unlawful orders, which the military also does.

 

[RDKirk]

In your opinion.

The bar for the military is "manifestly illegal." If Trump's orders were "manifestly illegal" these matters would not be in appellate court. The courts are still trying to figure out if they are "manifestly illegal."

Nope. Not in the slightest. They didn't tell them to disobey lawful orders. They correctly told them to disobey unlawful orders, which the military also does.

And which the military would have, if any had been illegal orders.

Again, an "illegal order" (not to mention a "manifestly illegal order") is an order to break an existing law.

What is the existing law that the military has been ordered to break?

 

[Vambram]

The bar for the military is "manifestly illegal." If Trump's orders were "manifestly illegal" these matters would not be in appellate court. The courts are still trying to figure out if they are "manifestly illegal."


And which the military would have, if any had been illegal orders.

Again, an "illegal order" (not to mention a "manifestly illegal order") is an order to break an existing law.

What is the existing law that the military has been ordered to break?

Quoted For Truth

 

[Yarddog]

The bar for the military is "manifestly illegal." If Trump's orders were "manifestly illegal" these matters would not be in appellate court. The courts are still trying to figure out if they are "manifestly illegal."

Well, the UCMJ says this:
(c) Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority ofthe official issuing it. See the discussion of lawful-
ness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).

Now, we all know what is contrary to the laws of the United States and for the most part, the Constitution. Some ambiguity may arise as to how much authority that Congress has given to the President in so called National Emergencies. But, it is the military's duty to disobey unlawful orders. We will have some clarity when SCOTUS rules on the case on the docket about using the military in Chicago.

And which the military would have, if any had been illegal orders.

The Navy has more information than the public has but it is their responsibility to report to Congress, if Congress calls for it, and which Congress says nothing has been provided to justify the bombing of boats in International waters.

Nothing in our laws allows for the murder or killing of alleged drug traffickers unless being fired upon.

 

[RDKirk]

Now, we all know what is contrary to the laws of the United States and for the most part, the Constitution. Some ambiguity may arise as to how much authority that Congress has given to the President in so called National Emergencies. But, it is the military's duty to disobey unlawful orders. We will have some clarity when SCOTUS rules on the case on the docket about using the military in Chicago.

No, we don't always know what what is contrary to the laws of the United States, and certainly not the Constitution.

That's why these situations end up in court. And especially when they go to the Supreme Court.

The president and his lawyers make their own decision of what is legal and Constitutional (or how to make it sound so in the necessary legalese) and give orders to the military. The Constitution gives the president that power, contradictable only by the Courts.

If Congress has passed explicit legislation on military matters, the Supreme Court will rule whether the president has stayed within the boundaries of an explicit law, but the Supreme Court largely stays out disputes with the Executive Branch on the basic Constitutionality of military actions. Not just with Trump...the Supreme Court has always been skittish about making rulings on the Constitutionality of Executive Branch military actions. They've even said as much in the past, essentially: "That area is not in our wheelhouse."

The Navy has more information than the public has but it is their responsibility to report to Congress, if Congress calls for it, and which Congress says nothing has been provided to justify the bombing of boats in International waters.

The White House has construed a legal justification for those attacks.

Congress, as a body, has not objected to Trump's justifications. Congress has not passed any resolutions condemning those actions or prohibiting those actions in the future. Flimsy as you or I might think those justifications might be, they are currently standing in the Federal government.

Nothing in our laws allows for the murder or killing of alleged drug traffickers unless being fired upon.

Nothing in our laws prohibits it, given the presidential justifications. As I just said, Congress has not objected and the Supreme Court will either back away from a decision (which they normally do) or agree with Trump's lawyers.

That's how we invaded Panama.

 

[Yarddog]

No, we don't always know what what is contrary to the laws of the United States, and certainly not the Constitution.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in our courts. I agree that it is different with the Constitution and said that.

That's why these situations end up in court. And especially when they go to the Supreme Court.

Most cases that end up in court are people that knowingly broke a the law. SCOTUS is a bit different. A lot of that is people testing the Constitutionality of laws.

The president and his lawyers make their own decision of what is legal and Constitutional (or how to make it sound so in the necessary legalese) and give orders to the military. The Constitution gives the president that power, contradictable only by the Courts.

Sadly, Congress has given the President more authority than the Constitution gave him. The Constitution gives the President more authority in "emergencies" and Trump is testing just how far SCOTUS will let him go.

Sadly, we are having many career officers deciding to retire instead of obeying, what they believe, are illegal orders.

If Congress has passed explicit legislation on military matters, the Supreme Court will rule whether the president has stayed within the boundaries of an explicit law, but the Supreme Court largely stays out disputes with the Executive Branch on the basic Constitutionality of military actions. Not just with Trump...the Supreme Court has always been skittish about making rulings on the Constitutionality of Executive Branch military actions. They've even said as much in the past, essentially: "That area is not in our wheelhouse."

Agreed

The White House has construed a legal justification for those attacks.

Yes, but there are no laws which allow the killing of individuals without trying to ascertain intentions.

Even in wartime Iraq, troops tried to stop speeding vehicles, that could be suicide bombers, because they may be civilians. These speed boats, may or may not be drug runners, but blowing them up without attempting to stop them by other, is illegal. If not, please give me a law which allows it.

After WWII, war crime trials executed guards and soldiers which were following orders.

Congress, as a body, has not objected to Trump's justifications.

Sadly.

Nothing in our laws prohibits it, given the presidential justifications. As I just said, Congress has not objected and the Supreme Court will either back away from a decision (which they normally do) or agree with Trump's lawyers.

That's how we invaded Panama.

Sadly

 

[RDKirk]

After WWII, war crime trials executed guards and soldiers which were following orders.

They executed guards and soldiers who violated what was already international law treaties that Germany had ratified. In other words, they had violated the laws of their own nation.

If a US soldier obeys a law that is declared illegal only after the fact, he will not be prosecuted.

 

[RDKirk]

Even in wartime Iraq, troops tried to stop speeding vehicles, that could be suicide bombers, because they may be civilians.

For a moment, but only for a moment, just long enough to decide that whether they were "innocent" civilians or civilians who were also suicide bombers. Any speeding vehicle that didn't stop pretty darned quickly was fired upon, whether it contained women and children or not.

These speed boats, may or may not be drug runners, but blowing them up without attempting to stop them by other, is illegal. If not, please give me a law which allows it.

I don't think you know how law works.

It's not necessary to have a law that allows an action, only a law that prohibits it. What is not prohibited is generally allowed.

 

[Yarddog]

They executed guards and soldiers who violated what was already international law treaties that Germany had ratified. In other words, they had violated the laws of their own nation.

If a US soldier obeys a law that is declared illegal only after the fact, he will not be prosecuted.

So since it's illegal to use excessive force in the US, Navy or Coast Guard personal can be prosecuted for deliberately killing alleged criminals in speed boats?