"Don't Give up the Ship"

BCP1928 · 2025-11-21T11:59:18-0600

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

Would you, under the present circumstances, regard an order to invade Venezuala as legal?

Say it aint so · 2025-11-21T12:24:25-0600

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?

Obviously it was foolish for him to take the bait (and doesn't demonstrate level-headed leadership)

...but I'm not sure that we're living in the best time for "hey, lemme stir the pot just to rile up the other side so everyone can see how crazy they are"

That aside, is their video implying that every military member is qualified to make constitutional judgments for things that haven't even been officially decided by actual judges yet?

If the shoe was on the other foot, and another contentious issue was the focal point - guns.

If a bunch of republican congressmen made a montage video telling local police officers (who, like most servicemen, are not constitutional experts qualified to make some of these types of judgement calls) "Hey, you all swore an oath... the constitution clearly states that people have the right to bear arms, so if those governors in California and New York are trying to get you to enforce their gun control restrictions, you can, and in fact...have a duty to, refuse to enforce those, and if you see someone carrying a gun without permit, you can let them go"

Would that style of activism be well-received by the left half? (hint: no it wouldn't, because that actually happened in Oregon with Measure 114, where various state leaders in law enforcement agencies publicly declared that they were going to ignore it because they personally thought it was unconstitutional, and instructed their officers not to enforce it - the left in Oregon was none too pleased about that)

Here's how this little PR stunt they did actually plays out in the real world:
They're needlessly going to provoke and paint a target on some peoples' backs
And
Well-intentioned (but misguided) servicemen are going to get court marshalled and/or dishonorably discharged and lose their benefits

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.

Not a PR stunt. This is one of the premises for the video:

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations

The question of legality led to the Southcom Commander quitting.

Always in His Presence · 2025-11-21T12:38:25-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Not yet. The order has been stayed, but the ruling has not been overturned.

The good congress people never mentioned a specific crime, only that they would have the soldiers back.

But let's explore the reality based on the point you brought up.

The president orders the National Guard into an area -

1 or more soldiers refuse because they believe it to be an unlawful order.

The order is given
The soldier refuses
The order is repeated and the soldier is informed of the consequences of refusal
If the order is refused a second time - the soldier is immediately relieved of duty
The soldier is then charged with an article 90 or article 91
The commander opens an investigation. An article 32 hearing is established.
if found guilty:
1. reduction in rank,
2. forfeiture of pay,
3. extra duty, restriction,
4. restriction,
5. or (for E-4 and below) correctional custody
6. Summary Court-Martial (for minor offenses)

All this happens a whole lot faster than the issue going through the courts. Are you going to trust your future to a group of politicians?

Say it aint so · 2025-11-21T12:49:03-0600

Always in His Presence said:
The good congress people never mentioned a specific crime, only that they would have the soldiers back.

But let's explore the reality based on the point you brought up.

The president orders the National Guard into an area -

1 or more soldiers refuse because they believe it to be an unlawful order.

The order is given

The soldier refuses

The order is repeated and the soldier is informed of the consequences of refusal

If the order is refused a second time - the soldier is immediately relieved of duty

The soldier is then charged with an article 90 or article 91

The commander opens an investigation. An article 32 hearing is established.

if found guilty:

reduction in rank,

forfeiture of pay,

extra duty, restriction,

restriction,

or (for E-4 and below) correctional custody

Summary Court-Martial (for minor offenses)

All this happens a whole lot faster than the issue going through the courts. Are you going to trust your future to a group of politicians?

There is concern is driven by members of the military seeking outside counsel. They know legality is of no concern to their ultimate boss, so it's case of CYA.

essentialsaltes · 2025-11-21T12:50:51-0600

Always in His Presence said:
All this happens a whole lot faster than the issue going through the courts. Are you going to trust your future to a group of politicians?

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.

Vambram · 2025-11-21T13:05:15-0600

Troops risk court-martial if they follow Democrats’ ‘illegal orders’ advice, former military lawyers warn

While the lawmakers behind the video framed the appeal as a defense of the Constitution, military legal codes make clear that refusing orders can carry devastating penalties.

www.foxnews.com

Troops are going to get court martialed if they do what those Democrats want.

Aryeh Jay · 2025-11-21T13:14:18-0600

BCP1928 said:
Would you, under the present circumstances, regard an order to invade Venezuala as legal?

I will answer for me as I am currently serving and may be close to the area. In my opinion no, it would not be illegal. To me it is little different from the invasions of Gernada and Panama. Questionable? Ill advised? Sure, but not illegal.

Unlike the other two that for the most part kept secret, we are allowing Venezuela to prepare a grand reception that will rival any to ever occur in the new golden ballroom.

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T13:15:35-0600

BCP1928 said:
Would you, under the present circumstances, regard an order to invade Venezuala as legal?

If Trump issues such an order, you can bet that the White House lawyers will have couched it in terms that it would not be "manifestly illegal."

Like the invasions of Grenada, Panama, and Iraq.

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T13:19:56-0600

Say it aint so said:
Not a PR stunt. This is one of the premises for the video:

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations
The question of legality led to the Southcom Commander quitting.

Notice, he did not disobey the orders.

He was, apparently, bothered significantly by the question of legality, and took the option open to him.

Of course, retiring as a four-star flag officer is not a loss of any kind. That's a pretty good "win." Shed no tears for him.

Say it aint so · 2025-11-21T13:25:31-0600

Vambram said:
Troops risk court-martial if they follow Democrats’ ‘illegal orders’ advice, former military lawyers warn

While the lawmakers behind the video framed the appeal as a defense of the Constitution, military legal codes make clear that refusing orders can carry devastating penalties.

www.foxnews.com

Troops are going to get court martialed if they do what those Democrats want.

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

Say it aint so · 2025-11-21T13:28:30-0600

RDKirk said:
Notice, he did not disobey the orders.

He was, apparently, bothered significantly by the question of legality, and took the option open to him.

Of course, retiring as a four-star flag officer is not a loss of any kind. That's a pretty good "win." Shed no tears for him.

Yes. That accounts for the commander. I am not military but it would seem to me your average private doesn't have the option to just announce a retirement date. Again, it's not a PR stunt. They are voicing concern. And with good reason.

wing2000 · 2025-11-21T13:37:06-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
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

ThatRobGuy said:
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

Ensuring that our military is not used unlawfully against our citizens is not a "political game." I fully support their efforts to draw attention to a president's spoken intentions that if implemented, are more than likely - illegal. As I write this, CBP officers are violating the 4th Amendment rights of US citizens. Military members need to realize they are in greater legal jeopardy serving under this president. It has not been a concern in the past as prior presidents didn't order the military execute civilians on the high seas...as just one example that has already happened. Trump will continue to push the enveleope unless we stand up and stop him.

Trump, speaking to assembled Senior military leaders earlier this year:

"And people other than politicians, that looked bad, they think. The Democrats run most of the cities that are in bad shape. We have many cities in great shape too, by the way. I want you to know that. But it seems that the ones that are run by the radical left Democrats, what they've done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they're very unsafe places. And we're going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within. "

....
"We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military national guard, but military. "

ThatRobGuy said:
...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.

You think people like Sen Kelly did this to goad the POTUS into saying the Senator should be executed? Really?

Trump is accountable for his own reactions.

And his reaction is telling. After all, if all of his future orders are legal, whats the big deal?

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T13:38:14-0600

Say it aint so said:
Not a PR stunt. This is one of the premises for the video:

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations
The question of legality led to the Southcom Commander quitting.

There's a big difference between an older servicemen (who's already got his 20 in) opting to retire based on a philosophical disagreement...

...and 19-23 year old being encouraged to disobey orders they may disagree with on the basis of congressmen steering them in that direction.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-21T13:42:31-0600

wing2000 said:
You think people like Sen Kelly did this to goad the POTUS into saying the Senator should be executed? Really?

They were definitely trying to draw out a reaction as part of this whole thing...perhaps the reaction they got was more extreme than anticipated.

But they definitely didn't do it with the impression that "meh, I'm sure Trump will just ignore this and not say a peep about it"

Say it aint so · 2025-11-21T13:43:07-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
There's a big difference between an older servicemen (who's already got his 20 in) opting to retire based on a philosophical disagreement...

...and 19-23 year old being encouraged to disobey orders they may disagree with on the basis of congressmen steering them in that direction.

....or a 19-23 year old being appraised through outside counsel being so concerned of their ultimate bosses penchant of disregarding legalities.

Say it aint so · 2025-11-21T13:46:42-0600

A blast from the past:

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper says that former President Trump asked authorities if they could shoot protesters in the legs amid the demonstrations that filled the streets of Washington following the murder of George Floyd.

“Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” Esper says Trump said.

Those guardrails in the likes of Mark Esper are gone. And in his place is the arrogant Pete (US accidentally invades Mexico) Hegseth. Those guardrails within the executive branch and congress itself for that matter, are now gone.

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T14:46:48-0600

wing2000 said:
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

That last question in the linked article was kind of goofy.

"I or someone I know has been charged with refusing to obey an illegal order. Where can I get more information or advice?"

No soldier ever has or ever will be charged with "refusing to obey an illegal order."

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T14:49:03-0600

Say it aint so said:
Yes. That accounts for the commander. I am not military but it would seem to me your average private doesn't have the option to just announce a retirement date. Again, it's not a PR stunt. They are voicing concern. And with good reason.

They shouldn't be "voicing concern," they should be using the power of their office to do something about it. They're the doggoned Congress of the United States.

This was just a political stunt. They're doing nothing beneficial to soldiers.

Always in His Presence · 2025-11-21T14:50:29-0600

essentialsaltes said:
What if they are politicians themselves? Maybe they have a good grasp of the law. Maybe they don't

Would you chance a general court martial or jail time on a maybe?

RDKirk · 2025-11-21T14:51:45-0600

Say it aint so said:
....or a 19-23 year old being appraised through outside counsel being so concerned of their ultimate bosses penchant of disregarding legalities.

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."

"Don't Give up the Ship"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations​

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

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.​

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Stuck on a ship.

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Part of the IT crowd

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations​

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Jesus is the only Way

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations

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.

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations

Military Personnel Are Quietly Seeking Counsel on the Legality of Trump’s Caribbean Operations