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

[RDKirk]

I understand how the law works.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11336/LSB11336.1.pdf

That is clearly for police officers, not for military operations.

The court did not in any way intend that ruling to apply to military operations.

You seem not to understand how this works.

 

[hedrick]

The military is not going to prosecute them for following an order that the government's lawyers had determined at the time was a valid military operation. That's not murder.

William Calley committed an act that had already been designated as criminal under US law.

The standard is patently illegal. I would suggest that an example would be to fire on peaceful protestors. You’d hope this is impossible, but there are reasons for concern. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/us/protests-legal-illegal-constitution-trump The most plausible situation would be a quickly developing one where lawyers didnt review it. Probably the Secretary of Defense or some layer of officer would not pass it on, but I’m less confident of that now than in Trump’s first term.

 

[RDKirk]

Let me make a general statement here about military law:

Military justice is not philosophical. Military justice is about control of military forces. That's why things that are not crimes in the civilian community are crimes in the military. If philosophical justice happens in military law, that's merely coincidental.

 

[RDKirk]

The standard is patently illegal. I would suggest that an example would be to fire on peaceful protestors. You’d hope this is impossible, but there are reasons for concern. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/us/protests-legal-illegal-constitution-trump The most plausible situation would be an ongoing onecwhere lawyets didnt review it. Probably the Secretary of Defense or some layer of officer would not pass it on, but I’m less confident of that now than in Trump’s first term.

Trump’s defenders acknowledge it’s not entirely clear how he intends to define “illegal protest.” And the White House has not responded to CNN’s requests for specifics on what protests it would classify as illegal.

So, let's see if Trump's lawyers can come up with a novel way to designate peaceful protests as illegal.

And let's see if they come up with a novel way to order the military to prevent those "illegal protests."

And in the meantime, let's see if our brave and bold elected members of Congress take any actions to prevent that from happening in the first place so that it doesn't have to rest on the moral courage of some Generation Z National Guard corporal.

 

[Yarddog]

That is clearly for police officers, not for military operations.

Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution. It is also for military operations. Of course, they also have rules of engagement, which are far stricter than what police officers are supposed to follow.

You seem not to understand how this works.

I understand death. What military rule allows the military to kill civilians. There is nothing in the videos supplied to the public which shows any attempt to stop or disable the boats without killing the occupants. It has also not been provided to Congress.

 

[RDKirk]

Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution. It is also for military operations. Of course, they also have rules of engagement, which are far stricter than what police officers are supposed to follow.

Military personnel do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution, however.
No military court is going to rule a presidential order as "unconstitutional."
That's never going to happen.
That is out of their jurisdictional wheelhouse.

I understand death. What military rule allows the military to kill civilians. There is nothing in the videos supplied to the public which shows any attempt to stop or disable the boats without killing the occupants. It has also not been provided to Congress.

The military kills civilians all the time. What are you talking about?

 

[Yarddog]

Military personnel do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution, however.
No military court is going to rule a presidential order as "unconstitutional."
That's never going to happen.
That is out of their jurisdictional wheelhouse.

Not if those Constitutional amendments had already been explained by SCOTUS.

The military kills civilians all the time. What are you talking about?

Then you admit that the US military ignores the Geneva Convention and are guilty of war crimes.

 

[RDKirk]

Not if those Constitutional amendments had already been explained by SCOTUS.

To the extent that soldiers must consider it, those SCOTUS rulings are already incorporated into the explicit laws soldiers must obey. They are not required to interpret the Constitution themselves.

Then you admit that the US military ignores the Geneva Convention and are guilty of war crimes.

The Geneva Conventions do not create a blanket prohibition of the killing of civilians in combat. For instance, when industrial installations are bombed, do you think the civilian workers are not killed?

Under certain conditions, the Geneva Conventions even permit destruction of schools and hospitals.

 

[Yarddog]

To the extent that soldiers must consider it, those SCOTUS rulings are already incorporated into the explicit laws soldiers must obey. They are not required to interpret the Constitution themselves.

They should know what is required of them.

The Geneva Conventions do not create a blanket prohibition of the killing of civilians in combat.

Collateral damage which result in death to civilians will occur in armed conflicts but we are not talking about that.

The Coast Guard and Navy are highly trained in how to stop alleged drug smugglers at sea. They do it hundreds of times every year. Very few result in deaths. They know what they are doing and what is expected of them.

Now, because Trump wants to blow boats up, instead of stopping them and arresting those on board, we see murder occurring.

Anyone of those boats could have been stopped and boarded, to confirm they were operating illegally.

 

[RDKirk]

They should know what is required of them.

To obey US laws. Yeah. To interpret the Constitution for themselves, no.

Collateral damage which result in death to civilians will occur in armed conflicts but we are not talking about that.

The Coast Guard and Navy are highly trained in how to stop alleged drug smugglers at sea. They do it hundreds of times every year. Very few result in deaths. They know what they are doing and what is expected of them.

Now, because Trump wants to blow boats up, instead of stopping them and arresting those on board, we see murder occurring.

Anyone of those boats could have been stopped and boarded, to confirm they were operating illegally.

You're going to have to get the Supreme Court to call it murder, if you want any legal action taken.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You can make a reasonable case that orders to bomb boats with alleged smugglers are illegal.

Alleged? Spare me.

I dont see any fishing gear. Perhaps it is under the stacks of drugs?

You can also reasonably argue that use of the national guard in cities has often been illegal.

Nope. They are protecting federal property. Completely legal. Otherwise, judge advocates would have advised the president otherwise.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

That is clearly for police officers, not for military operations.

The court did not in any way intend that ruling to apply to military operations.

You seem not to understand how this works.

Isn't it interesting how randos on the internet seem to know more about the UCMC and lawful orders than the veterans?

 

[Yarddog]

To obey US laws. Yeah. To interpret the Constitution for themselves, no.

If a person can't read, they don't need to be in the military.

You're going to have to get the Supreme Court to call it murder, if you want any legal action taken.

Admiral Holsey sure knew it was illegal.

 

[RDKirk]

If a person can't read, they don't need to be in the military.

If anyone could interpret the Constitution just by reading it, there would be no need for the Supreme Court

Hey, did you know that civilians didn't have the right to remain silent (5th Amendment) until 1966?

Military had it from the moment the document was ratified, but civilians didn't have it until 1966.

That's because nobody had interpreted the 5th Amendment as including civilians until 1966.

Admiral Holsey sure knew it was illegal.

He knew he personally didn't like it, and had the option to retire.

 

[Yarddog]

If anyone could interpret the Constitution just by reading it, there would be no need for the Supreme Court

Hey, did you know that civilians didn't have the right to remain silent (5th Amendment) until 1966?

Military had it from the moment the document was ratified, but civilians didn't have it until 1966.

That's because nobody had interpreted the 5th Amendment as including civilians until 1966.


He knew he personally didn't like it, and had the option to retire.

Okay, you convinced me. Those Nazi guards deserved to die because they weren't wise enough to say no, and everyone responsible for killing those civilians in speed boats will deserve the same because they are too dumb to know it's wrong to kill.

 

[RDKirk]

Okay, you convinced me. Those Nazi guards deserved to die because they weren't wise enough to say no,

They were convicted of breaking German laws.

and everyone responsible for killing those civilians in speed boats will deserve the same because they are too dumb to know it's wrong to kill.

They are not breaking US laws.

 

[hedrick]

Alleged? Spare me.
View attachment 373530
I dont see any fishing gear. Perhaps it is under the stacks of drugs?

Nope. They are protecting federal property. Completely legal. Otherwise, judge advocates would have advised the president otherwise.

The point isn't that they are innocent, but that this is a law enforcement function. We don't say "we're pretty sure these guys are guilty. Send snipers to kill them." We arrest them. The traditional approach is to have the Coast Guard stop them. The legal question is whether this is an invasion.

Here's how military.com says treeps where used in DC. This is not just guarding federal buildings.

"The soldiers have patrolled Washington’s neighborhoods, monuments, train stations, and high-traffic streets. They have set up checkpoints on highways and supported federal agents in raids that have arrested hundreds of people, often for immigration-related infractions. They’ve also been assigned to pick up trash, guard sports events, conventions and concerts and have been seen taking selfies with tourists and residents alike."

A Federal Judge Blocked Trump's National Guard Deployment to DC But Troops Aren't Leaving Just Yet

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb put her order on hold for 21 days to allow the Trump administration time to either remove the troops or appeal the decision.

www.military.com

 

[Yarddog]

They are not breaking US laws.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure if they blew up a speed boat on the Ohio river someone would be spending time in prison.

JAG has been raising cane and many Navy officers have also, saying it's illegal.