AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
"clearly intended". Where do you see this? Be specific.
You must refuse illegal orders!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I also can't help but notice that most of the leftists here were very on board with the military following orders if gun confiscation were to ever be an edict.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
@Nomad is not most of the JPP leftists who believe that.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You keep trying to make an implication something concrete. That's not how implied speech works.
So why are Trumppers crying in their cheerio's and discussing the death penalty over these guys "wasting their time?" If our military is so easily insulted we are in trouble, I doubt any significant number of them are insulted. YES, even if the illegal order comes TRUMP himself, it's still illegal.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
You claimed that it was clearly intended. They never said to disobey lawful orders.
You merely read between the lines with your magical eyes due to your hatred of Democrats/Leftists and your adoration of Trump.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
I've noticed that too. @T. A. Gardner thinks that the military is easily insulted.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I'm not "discussing the death penalty" over them. I'm saying for the first time in US history, you have members of the opposition party telling military members to question the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and their officers at every turn. You don't make a national commercial / political message to express something like that about an occurrence so rare that you can count the number of times it's occurred on your fingers over the last 50 years.
So, why did they choose now to bring that message out? The clear answer is Trump. All six have expressed their opposition to Trump and not just in typical political rhetoric but in vehement opposition to him.
Watch the whole commercial / political statement they made.
View: https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/1990774492356902948?
"This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens."
They then launch into claiming that those the military and intelligence community needs to disobey or refuse to obey "Illegal orders." They are clearly and unequivocally saying that Trump, the Commander-in-Chief, and his administration are giving the military and intelligence community illegal orders. There is no other way to interpret those statements. They started by defining who is giving illegal orders and then said clearly that those orders must be refused by the military et al.
Yakuda
Verified User
Just give us one unlawful order. You say the Internet is filled with examples if so post one, bitch
Crepitus
Verified User
The constitution.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
What questioning? All they did was reminding them.
He has violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Perhaps they were referring to that?
Nope. They oppose illegal orders. You are here arguing that the military should obey every illegal order. Not a good look on you.
Already addressed.
Did they say that all orders by the Trump Administration were illegal?
Be honest and say no.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
No, they started by implicating the current administration. I quoted where they did that.
He has not. That refers to the US of federal troops in the active military, not the National Guard.
Already addressed. Point out the specific illegal order(s) you are referring to. There are none that are clearly, unequivocally illegal.
Now you are using a trivial objections fallacy by turning this into an all or nothing question.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
No you didn't.
A federal judge disagrees.
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Wither or not you disagreeing with the judge has no bearing with the likelihood that those Democrats were referring to it, at least one case.
I'll answer the question on your behalf. The answer is no. They never claimed that every order by Trump was illegal.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Yes, I did. You simply didn't grasp what I was saying.
That federal judge was overruled by the circuit court and appellate courts.
No, the National Guard can be used in civil emergencies including riots.
That's quite the stretch.
They did claim by implication that Trump is issuing illegal orders (note the plural on that).
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
So quote it again.
Temporarily. How is that relevant?
Of course.
How so? I said that it was likely. I'm sure there were few other cases.
So with your magical eyes and ears they said ALL orders from Trump were and will be illegal? And with your and Leavitt's magical eyes and ears they were telling them to disobey lawful orders?
Keep crying Trumpper, They did not tell them to question orders, why do you feel the need to lie. They told them they cannot follow illegal orders.
Yes, TACO is likely to issue illegal orders. I believe that is very likely, the guy does not care about the law.
I did not say that.
QP!
Verified User
And yet military schools and police academies and law schools, etc all say you are wrong.
They all feel their is reason and even necessity to say it.
So, as always, you are wrong and stupid.
QP!
Verified User
The very fact a ruling and appeal might come to differing conclusions and you do not know how the ultimate ruling will end up is why it is important for leaders to not put those under their charge of potentially being on the wrong side of the law when the finally ruling comes down.
If you have leaders who do not put those under their charge first and tell them to hold off until the ruling is finalized, so they do not end up on the wrong side of the law is why OTHERS should remind them that saying 'I was only following orders' will not be a defense to any law breaking was done.
That never came up. However if it did, they would be following legal orders. Right wing deflection hits again.