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

Vambram · Friday at 6:42 PM

P

Yarddog said:
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 · Friday at 7:01 PM

Vambram said:
P

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

In your opinion.

Vambram said:
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 · Friday at 8:35 PM

Yarddog said:
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."

Yarddog said:
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 · Friday at 8:42 PM

RDKirk said:
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 · 2025-11-22T00:43:46-0600

RDKirk said:
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.

RDKirk said:
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 · 2025-11-22T09:08:01-0600

Yarddog said:
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."

Yarddog said:
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.

Yarddog said:
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 · 2025-11-22T10:15:37-0600

RDKirk said:
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.

RDKirk said:
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.

RDKirk said:
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.

RDKirk said:
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

RDKirk said:
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.

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

Sadly.

RDKirk said:
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 · 2025-11-22T22:19:19-0600

Yarddog said:
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 · 2025-11-22T22:25:38-0600

Yarddog said:
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.

Yarddog said:
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 · 2025-11-23T00:11:21-0600

RDKirk said:
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?

RDKirk · 2025-11-23T06:38:18-0600

Yarddog said:
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?

You keep saying it's illegal...cite the US law that they would be prosecuted under.

hedrick · 2025-11-23T06:45:33-0600

RDKirk said:
You keep saying it's illegal...cite the US law that they would be prosecuted under.

This article will give you a sense of the debate: Top military lawyer raised legal concerns about boat strikes While there are good arguments that using lethal force requires justifications that the administration doesn't have, past administrations of both parties have also rejected some of these limits. As far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn't dealt with them. Here's a legal analysis that argues that they are not legal: Perry World House Q&A with William Burke-White: Understanding the Legal Ramifications of U.S. Strikes Against Venezuela - Perry World House However it is not clear to me that past administrations have accepted the restrictions referred to there, even though in principle they should.

In the current case, the legal question is whether drug smugglers are criminals or an invading army.

However in the past, US presidents seem to have felt free to drop bombs on people without a declaration of war or other legal justification.

Oompa Loompa · 2025-11-23T06:59:03-0600

Yarddog said:
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.

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.

First, there are already processes in place for dealing with unlawful orders such as the chain of command and the judge advocates. Second, where the heck were Democrats when service members were being kicked out of the military for refusing the COVID vaccines? Third, what illegal orders are these democrats talking about?

hedrick · 2025-11-23T07:07:30-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
First, there are already processes in place for dealing with unlawful orders such as the chain of command and the judge advocates. Second, where the heck were Democrats when service members were being kicked out of the military for refusing the COVID vaccines? Third, what illegal orders are these democrats talking about?

You can make a reasonable case that orders to bomb boats with alleged smugglers are illegal. You can also reasonably argue that use of the national guard in cities has often been illegal. Judge rules Trump's National Guard deployment to D.C. is illegal. In both cases, however, these issues are going to be dealt with in the courts. It would not be a good idea for individual soldiers to disobey.

On the other hand, Trump has been pushing the boundaries of presidential powers. It's not unreasonable to ask whether in the next 3 years he might go further and issue orders that should be rejected.

It's not so clear that the chain of command is going to work in this case. There's reason to think that JAG's are being overruled by politicians, as noted in a previous article. The Comey prosecution is another example of the same thing: the real prosecutors were fired, and someone brought in whose only qualification was a willingness to do the prosecution. This is not an administration that can be relied on to use internal controls.

RDKirk · 2025-11-23T08:05:50-0600

hedrick said:
This article will give you a sense of the debate: Top military lawyer raised legal concerns about boat strikes While there are good arguments that using lethal force requires justifications that the administration doesn't have, past administrations of both parties have also rejected some of these limits. As far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn't dealt with them. Here's a legal analysis that argues that they are not legal: Perry World House Q&A with William Burke-White: Understanding the Legal Ramifications of U.S. Strikes Against Venezuela - Perry World House However it is not clear to me that past administrations have accepted the restrictions referred to there, even though in principle they should.

In the current case, the legal question is whether drug smugglers are criminals or an invading army.

However in the past, US presidents seem to have felt free to drop bombs on people without a declaration of war or other legal justification.

You didn't answer the question.

In a court-martial, the military defendant will be charged with having broken a US law. A specific US law. The prosecution will have to cite that US law.

If there was no specific US law broken at the time the military defendant committed the action, he will not be charged.

So, what is the specific US law that has been broken that those sailors must be concerned about legal prosecution?

RDKirk · 2025-11-23T08:18:38-0600

hedrick said:
It's not so clear that the chain of command is going to work in this case. There's reason to think that JAG's are being overruled by politicians, as noted in a previous article. The Comey prosecution is another example of the same thing: the real prosecutors were fired, and someone brought in whose only qualification was a willingness to do the prosecution. This is not an administration that can be relied on to use internal controls.

Be sure to understand the mission of military lawyers. Their mission is not separate from the commander's mission, their mission is in assistance to the commander's mission. They don't tell commanders, "No," they tell commanders, "How" in the best legal terms they can muster.

It's the same for White House lawyers. They don't tell the president, "No," they tell the president, "How" in the best legalese they can devise. They say, "Doing it that way would be illegal, but this is a way to make it legal--or at least tie it up in court--but you'll have done it anyway."

Yarddog · 2025-11-23T09:48:17-0600

RDKirk said:
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.

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.

I understand how the law works.

RDKirk said:
You keep saying it's illegal...cite the US law that they would be prosecuted under.

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

Yarddog · 2025-11-23T10:08:52-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
First, there are already processes in place for dealing with unlawful orders such as the chain of command and the judge advocates.

Chain of command doesn't stop illegal orders. The UCMJ lists plenty of examples of what not to do, but they still occur, occasionally.

Oompa Loompa said:
Second, where the heck were Democrats when service members were being kicked out of the military for refusing the COVID vaccines?

We actually had a real emergency situation under COVID. An outbreak in the military could devastate our readiness to protect people in our nation. Biden was trying to save lives from a very real threat and it wasn't an unlawful order. There are lots of vaccines required by the military.

Oompa Loompa said:
Third, what illegal orders are these democrats talking about?

An illegal order is any order which violates the US Constitution or US laws.

hedrick · 2025-11-23T10:31:16-0600

RDKirk said:
You didn't answer the question.

In a court-martial, the military defendant will be charged with having broken a US law. A specific US law. The prosecution will have to cite that US law.

If there was no specific US law broken at the time the military defendant committed the action, he will not be charged.

So, what is the specific US law that has been broken that those sailors must be concerned about legal prosecution?

Murder. William Calley - Wikipedia

RDKirk · 2025-11-23T10:43:49-0600

hedrick said:
Murder. William Calley - Wikipedia

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.

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

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Senior Contributor

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Senior Contributor

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Contributor

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Contributor

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Similar threads