Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Would you, under the present circumstances, regard an order to invade Venezuala as legal?Your point may have some arguable philosophical validity, but it has no legal validity.
Not a PR stunt. This is one of the premises for the video: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.
The good congress people never mentioned a specific crime, only that they would have the soldiers back.Not yet. The order has been stayed, but the ruling has not been overturned.
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.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.
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?
- 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)
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.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?
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."Would you, under the present circumstances, regard an order to invade Venezuala as legal?
Notice, he did not disobey the orders.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.
No they aren't. To understand what is legal and illegal is why they are consulting attorneys prior.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.
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.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.
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
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
...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.
There's a big difference between an older servicemen (who's already got his 20 in) opting to retire based on a philosophical disagreement...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.
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.You think people like Sen Kelly did this to goad the POTUS into saying the Senator should be executed? Really?
....or a 19-23 year old being appraised through outside counsel being so concerned of their ultimate bosses penchant of disregarding legalities.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.
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.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.
That last question in the linked article was kind of goofy.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
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.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.
Would you chance a general court martial or jail time on a maybe?What if they are politicians themselves? Maybe they have a good grasp of the law. Maybe they don't
Outside counsel can't say anything more than "try it and see."....or a 19-23 year old being appraised through outside counsel being so concerned of their ultimate bosses penchant of disregarding legalities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?