"Don't Give up the Ship"

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T09:41:16-0600

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

Right they're playing the coy card... where they mention nothing specific, but we all know what they're referring to.

Given that, if I'm not mistaken, this is the same group of people that just introduced legislation to try to explicitly limit domestic deployments last week... it's pretty clear what they're referring to

Slotkin Leads Colleagues to Introduce Bill to Rein in Abuse of National Guard in Domestic Deployments - Senator Elissa Slotkin

Slotkin Introduces No Troops in Our Streets Act WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) recently introduced legislation, the No Troops in Our Streets Act, to put limits on the Trump Administration’s ability to deploy the National Guard into American communities, while injecting $1...

www.slotkin.senate.gov

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T09:44:08-0600

BCP1928 said:
Now on to the big question: The President appears to be on the verge of ordering an invasion of Argentina--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.

Are you actually referring to Venezuela?

Argentina is where Trump's buddy Javier Milei is, correct?

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T09:44:57-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Are you actually referring to Venezuela?

That was my mistake--already fixed.

ThatRobGuy said:
Argentina is where Trump's buddy Javier Milei is, correct?

For the time being.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T09:53:00-0600

BCP1928 said:
That was my mistake--already fixed.

Even in that instance, it's still a legal grey area.

From my understanding, Trump's using similar rationales to justify the bypassing of congress that Reagan used in Granada and that George HW Bush used in Panama.

That being
- Relying heavily on interpretation of article 2 powers
- The claim of an existential threat to the safety of American citizens

Legal scholars are still going back and forth about those two events until this day.

So even the Venezuela situation is one that's not a "clear-cut no-brainer" judgement call for a troop to make.

durangodawood · 2025-11-21T09:53:06-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Right they're playing the coy card... where they mention nothing specific, but we all know what they're referring to.

Given that, if I'm not mistaken, this is the same group of people that just introduced legislation to try to explicitly limit domestic deployments last week... it's pretty clear what they're referring to

Slotkin Leads Colleagues to Introduce Bill to Rein in Abuse of National Guard in Domestic Deployments - Senator Elissa Slotkin

Slotkin Introduces No Troops in Our Streets Act WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) recently introduced legislation, the No Troops in Our Streets Act, to put limits on the Trump Administration’s ability to deploy the National Guard into American communities, while injecting $1...

www.slotkin.senate.gov

Of course they have that in mind. But this is a good time to reiterate the principle. And the principle does not include following clearly illegal orders while the court takes its time.

For sure these domestic deployments arent as clearly illegal like murdering a pow. But the lawless impulses of this president are becoming apparent. So its good to get ahead of the issue.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T10:10:40-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Even in that instance, it's still a legal grey area.

From my understanding, Trump's using similar rationales to justify the bypassing of congress that Reagan used in Granada and that George HW Bush used in Panama.

That being
- Relying heavily on interpretation of article 2 powers
- The claim of an existential threat to the safety of American citizens

Legal scholars are still going back and forth about those two events until this day.

So even the Venezuela situation is one that's not a "clear-cut no-brainer" judgement call for a troop to make.

It's not a "clear cut no brainer for anybody."

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T10:20:08-0600

BCP1928 said:
It's not a "clear cut no brainer for anybody."

Right, so then it would probably be irresponsible for congressmen and senators to try to put the idea in troops' heads that they are capable of making that judgment call, on the basis of "trust me, I was in the service just like you I'm your pal...if anything bad happens, I'll have your back!"

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T10:24:54-0600

durangodawood said:
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?

Yes, sure.

The military is charged, extremely explicitly, not to obey "illegal orders." We are taught by our mandatory annual Law of Armed Conflict training than an "illegal order" is an order to break a law.

The military does not interpret the Constitution. The military obeys the law as legislated by Congress.

There happens to be an existing law prohibiting the murder of a prisoner of war, so that's not even a hypothetical problem. Because the law exists and is explicit, the soldier would not obey an order to break it. There's no interpretation of the Constitution required.

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T10:26:08-0600

durangodawood said:
There is literally nothing about any particular circumstance in the message.

Which makes it useless political rhetoric.

Or worse than useless, such an appeal directly to the troops gives them the idea these Congressfolk could actually do something to protect them.

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T10:29:18-0600

BCP1928 said:
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.

Congress certainly has the Constitutional authority to impeach the president in such a situation.

The military can't protect the nation from its ill-advised politician selections.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T10:32:53-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Right, so then it would probably be irresponsible for congressmen and senators to try to put the idea in troops' heads that they are capable of making that judgment call, on the basis of "trust me, I was in the service just like you I'm your pal...if anything bad happens, I'll have your back!"

I think the point here is that it is not dishonorable or treasonous to refuse an order that one sincerely believes to be illegal. You may get into a lot of trouble over it, but your behavior cannot be deemed dishonorable.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T10:34:50-0600

durangodawood said:
Of course they have that in mind. But this is a good time to reiterate the principle. And the principle does not include following clearly illegal orders while the court takes its time.

For sure these domestic deployments arent as clearly illegal like murdering a pow. But the lawless impulses of this president are becoming apparent. So its good to get ahead of the issue.

If the shoe was on the other foot for a different polarizing issue, would the "there's nothing wrong with reiterating the principle" rationale be seen as "agenda-free"?

For example:

If, amid the hotly contested debate about the abortion drug mifepristone, a group of republican legislators (who just so happened introduce legislation to restrict the use) put together a video just casually reminding doctors, nurses, and pharmacists about their Hippocratic oath of "doing no harm".

Would that be seen as an innocuous sort of "hey, it can't hurt just to reiterate a principle, what's the big deal?" sort of thing?

Or would that be more seen as a dogwhistle being leveraged with the ulterior motive of trying to embolden professionals in the relevant field to do their bidding as a back up plan if their legislative attempt should happen to fail?

To me, it seems a lot like the latter...

For the Elissa Slotkins and Mark Kellys of the world, it seems like they're laying the groundwork for a plan B, where if they can't get their bill to pass to stop Trump from doing the thing they don't like, they'll plant the seeds for "troop refusal" as a backup to interfere with him doing the thing they don't like.

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T10:35:08-0600

durangodawood said:
Of course they have that in mind. But this is a good time to reiterate the principle. And the principle does not include following clearly illegal orders while the court takes its time.

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

If the court is deliberating the issue, then the order is not "clearly illegal."

durangodawood said:
For sure these domestic deployments arent as clearly illegal like murdering a pow. But the lawless impulses of this president are becoming apparent. So its good to get ahead of the issue.

The military can't get ahead of the president. If Congress wants to get ahead of the president, then they need to have the cojones to pass some legislation that does so.

But the fact is that the majority of Congress is right behind the president, and that Congressional majority is in place by the will of the people. The president is in place by the will of the people.

The military would be wrong to carry out an action against the civilian officials elected by the will of the people. That in itself would be a violation of the Constitution.

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T10:40:30-0600

BCP1928 said:
I think the point here is that it is not dishonorable or treasonous to refuse an order that one sincerely believes to be illegal. You may get into a lot of trouble over it, but your behavior cannot be deemed dishonorable.

Your point may have some arguable philosophical validity, but it has no legal validity.

Desk trauma · 2025-11-21T10:46:07-0600

RDKirk said:
The military can't protect the nation from its ill-advised politician selections.

It can and has in other countries. There’s even a word for it, military coup, but that’s not something I want to see start here.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-11-21T10:51:00-0600

We live in such a partisan political climate that even a group of members of Congress asking military personnel to follow the Constitution has become a topic of debate.

Our country is so divided that anything said by the other side is seen as offensive. The video repeated ideas we've agreed for 250 years, yet now we can't agree even on long-standing practices.

Perpetual Student · 2025-11-21T10:56:47-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
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?

If that were the case and the president is so easy to trigger, can we still say that he is fit for the function?
I expect someone with access to the nuclear codes to be calm, rational and resistent to stress.
Not to react with a hysterical rant about treason, sedition and death penalty. Especially not when the video is about nothing else than a call to follow the constitution.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T10:59:58-0600

Desk trauma said:
It can and has in other countries. There’s even a word for it, military coup, but that’s not something I want to see start here.

The operative word in RD's post was "protect"
Has one of those ever worked out and actually protected people in modern times?

By that I mean the people ended up with governance that wasn't equally (or even more) terrible than what they were trying to get away from?

When I think of people who came to power via a coup (under the pretenses of "we're the good guys, we're liberating the people from this other guy")

I think Castro, Pinochet, Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Franco, al-Assad... Iran's had a couple iterations of coups where their rights have gotten more restricted with each passing iteration...

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T11:08:08-0600

Perpetual Student said:
If that were the case and the president is so easy to trigger, can we still say that he is fit for the function?

That's why I stated that it didn't show levelheaded leadership on Trump's part... If I thought he was fit for the function, I would've voted for him, but I didn't.

...but if the democrats are going to claim to be the "adults in the room", then this sort of goading to get a response out of him just so that we can all have the conversation we're having now, should be beneath them. That's doubly true when they're making implied suggestions to troops to do things that could land troops in legal hot water and ruin their careers.

If someone has an alcoholic neighbor who gets irrational when he drinks, should they give him a bottle whiskey and car keys (and put third parties at risk) just as a means to prove to the other neighbors "see, this is what I'm talking about!...you see what an unhinged drunk he is?

Perpetual Student · 2025-11-21T11:17:33-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
That's why I stated that it didn't show levelheaded leadership on Trump's part... If I thought he was fit for the function, I would've voted for him, but I didn't.

...but if the democrats are going to claim to be the "adults in the room", then this sort of goading to get a response out of him just so that we can all have the conversation we're having now, should be beneath them. That's doubly true when they're making implied suggestions to troops to do things that could land troops in legal hot water and ruin their careers.

If someone has an alcoholic neighbor who gets irrational when he drinks, should they give him a bottle whiskey and car keys (and put third parties at risk) just as a means to prove to the other neighbors "see, this is what I'm talking about!...you see what an unhinged drunk he is?

"If someone has an alcoholic neighbor who gets irrational when he drinks, should they give him a bottle whiskey and car keys (and put third parties at risk) just as a means to prove to the other neighbors "see, this is what I'm talking about!...you see what an unhinged drunk he is?"
Under certain circumstances - yes, that might be a good thing to do. If the car is broken and the neighbour will not drive away, it might be a good thing to expose it clearly to see.
At this moment, Venezuela has not been invaded and no civilian has been shot. (Equivalent with, the car is broken). But Trump's instability is clear to see. Hence it could pave the way to use the 25th amendment, before real dammage is done.

"Don't Give up the Ship"

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

[redacted]

Well-Known Member

Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time

Similar threads