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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Vambram said:

P

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

Click to expand...

In your opinion.

Vambram said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Yarddog said:

In your opinion.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

Quoted For Truth

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.