Smells like a coup to me

Third thread on this.

AI Overview
1763655054131.png
1763655054221.jpeg
1763655054305.png
+4



Yes, military members have a duty to refuse unlawful orders and can get in trouble for
failing to do so. Refusing an illegal order is not a punishable offense; in fact, following one can lead to criminal liability for the service member
 
images
 
QP! said:
images
Click to expand...
In the first case, which tribe(s) are you referring to? The only clear case of something like you imply is the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.

In the second case, the Germans lost. If they'd have won their war that would be irrelevant because the winner isn't going to charge their own men for winning.

In the third, that's just idiotic. Persons in the US ILLEGALY can and should be arrested, tried, convicted, and removed per our immigration laws. Doesn't matter their gender or age. Or are you implying that you support those criminals staying in the US?
 
acq3qm.jpg


AI Summary:

The U.S. military teaches (or includes in its doctrine) that service members may have a duty to refuse “clearly illegal” orders. Here’s what the publicly available evidence shows.

What the Military Academies teach​


  1. Military Law / Training Materials
    • The Army’s The Army Lawyer (official JAG publication) has “Practice Notes” stating that if an order is “illegal” then service members may be required to refuse it. JAG Legal Center & School
    • This means there is recognition in legal-education materials of a duty to disobey illegal orders. JAG Legal Center & School
  2. Military Law Task Force (MLTF) Guidance
    • According to their 2025 FAQ, all service members “have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders.” Military Law Task Force
    • They note that under the UCMJ, an order is not binding if it's “illegal” (e.g. directing a crime). Military Law Task Force
  3. Legal / Constitutional Basis in Doctrine
    • According to a Just Security paper, U.S. military doctrine (and the Manual for Courts-Martial) reflects that duty: service members must refuse orders that are “unlawful.” Just Security
    • Loyola University-Chicago law scholars note that under the Law of War Manual and UCMJ, there is a recognized duty to refuse “illegal” orders. Law Scholars
  4. Surveys of Active-Duty Troops
    • A 2025 survey of U.S. troops (Military.com) found 80% of respondents understood that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. Military.com+1
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
In the first case, which tribe(s) are you referring to? The only clear case of something like you imply is the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.

In the second case, the Germans lost. If they'd have won their war that would be irrelevant because the winner isn't going to charge their own men for winning.

In the third, that's just idiotic. Persons in the US ILLEGALY can and should be arrested, tried, convicted, and removed per our immigration laws. Doesn't matter their gender or age. Or are you implying that you support those criminals staying in the US?
Click to expand...
Germans have been charged and killed for disobeying what was unlawful.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the first case, which tribe(s) are you referring to? The only clear case of something like you imply is the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.

In the second case, the Germans lost. If they'd have won their war that would be irrelevant because the winner isn't going to charge their own men for winning.

In the third, that's just idiotic. Persons in the US ILLEGALY can and should be arrested, tried, convicted, and removed per our immigration laws. Doesn't matter their gender or age. Or are you implying that you support those criminals staying in the US?
Click to expand...
Not that it matters to the thread, but whether the Germans won or loss, there does exist moral absolutes, being a winner doesn’t make it right
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not by their own command as implied in the picture I was addressing.
Click to expand...

Once again you are betrayed by your own stupidity.

The picture you replied to DOES NOT suggest they were punished by their own command. It is saying they used that 'excuse' under their own command and the point is to ensure people KNOW that simply because it is not prosecuted while the person giving the illegal order has power, does not mean it is not illegal and won't be prosecuted once they are out of power.


Trump's first admin learned that the hard way with so many prosecuted and guilty, that would never have been had he maintained power, proving it 'was illegal' even if not charged YET.

This Trump admin will learn the same, if Trump leaves any pardon avenues unclosed as the litany of crimes being done for Trump, right now, will be investigated and charged then.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the first case, which tribe(s) are you referring to? The only clear case of something like you imply is the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.

In the second case, the Germans lost. If they'd have won their war that would be irrelevant because the winner isn't going to charge their own men for winning.

In the third, that's just idiotic. Persons in the US ILLEGALY can and should be arrested, tried, convicted, and removed per our immigration laws. Doesn't matter their gender or age. Or are you implying that you support those criminals staying in the US?
Click to expand...
Bite a dead mules cock you little nazi fuck lapper
 
archives said:
Not that it matters to the thread, but whether the Germans won or loss, there does exist moral absolutes, being a winner doesn’t make it right
Click to expand...
Yes

There is a certain mind set to Trumpers

Anything to win

Only the “winner” matters


Everyone else is just a loser


That means even when they lose they just lie and say they are the winner

Nothing really matters but that tittle

Real winning isn’t even needed
 
If telling soldiers that they should act according to the law and rules of military conduct is a coup, then it is one. I know rightys love the law-breaking super super-cruel Trump administration and think it should be obeyed. Fuck the law, it is Trump after all. We will put the laws back in place when he is gone.
 
QP! said:
Once again you are betrayed by your own stupidity.

The picture you replied to DOES NOT suggest they were punished by their own command. It is saying they used that 'excuse' under their own command and the point is to ensure people KNOW that simply because it is not prosecuted while the person giving the illegal order has power, does not mean it is not illegal and won't be prosecuted once they are out of power.


Trump's first admin learned that the hard way with so many prosecuted and guilty, that would never have been had he maintained power, proving it 'was illegal' even if not charged YET.

This Trump admin will learn the same, if Trump leaves any pardon avenues unclosed as the litany of crimes being done for Trump, right now, will be investigated and charged then.
Click to expand...
They (the Nazis) lost. Stalin and Mao were equally brutal, but they won their wars. No one was punished for pretty much the same shit the Germans did. That's my point.

Same thing with say, the Obama and Clinton administrations doing "drive-by" Tomahawk missile assassinations. Obama even took out a couple of US citizens with them. Nobody got prosecuted because they 'won.'
 
Nordberg said:
If telling soldiers that they should act according to the law and rules of military conduct is a coup, then it is one. I know rightys love the law-breaking super super-cruel Trump administration and think it should be obeyed. Fuck the law, it is Trump after all. We will put the laws back in place when he is gone.
Click to expand...
Implying to the troops that the Command-in-Chief is issuing illegal orders and that the troops should therefore question or disobey the CinC, is the problem here. That's what those six Democrats were implying.
 
evince said:
Because they were offed or on trial too for those crimes you fucking idiot
Click to expand...
No you retard. The Germans lost. They were put on trial by the victors, not their own government. In fact, in one case, that of Otto Skorzeny, the defense brough in his US and British counterparts from the OSS and MI 6 who testified they did the exact same sorts of dirty tricks Skorzeny was accused of. His case was dismissed.

As I say, In war, the only true war crime is LOSING.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top