Six Democrat Congress Men and Women

images


That ploy is only necessary if you LOSE.
 
FastLane said:
Are attempting a coup. They are committing sedition. They want to have the military to refuse orders. Yet they don't point out any illegal order that has been issued. They are hoping that some of the military will refuse orders that ultimately come from the Commander in Chief. IF THEY HAD AN ILLEGAL ORDER THEY WOULD HAVE POINTED IT OUT. Instead they used this slimy tactic. Disgusting they should be impeached.

Click to expand...
"U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.

Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense."

www.military.com

4 Out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders

With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.
www.military.com www.military.com
 
AI Summary:

Key Policy / Legal Statements About Disobeying Unlawful Orders​


  1. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
    • Under UCMJ—particularly Article 92—service members are required to obey lawful orders. Orders that are “illegal” do not count as “lawful orders” and thus may be disobeyed. American Constitution Society+2law.hofstra.edu+2
    • The American Constitution Society law-policy brief notes: the Manual for Courts-Martial “makes clear … an order requiring … act may be inferred to be lawful … unless it is illegal, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” American Constitution Society
  2. Operational Law / Soldier’s Rules
    • The U.S. Army’s Operational Law Handbook states clearly: “If a Soldier is court-martialed for carrying out an obviously unlawful order … the ‘I just followed orders’ defense usually fails. … Soldiers must recognize unlawful orders and act appropriately.” tjaglcs.army.mil
    • It further says there is “no ‘just following orders’ defense … by training and common sense, Soldiers must recognize unlawful orders.” tjaglcs.army.mil
  3. Duty and Moral Courage (“Good Governance”)
    • According to a Just Security paper, there is a “military duty … to say no when an order is clearly unlawful.” justsecurity.org
    • That duty is grounded in both U.S. military law (UCMJ) and international principles (e.g., Nuremberg). justsecurity.org
  4. Military Law Task Force (MLTF) / Legal Guidance
    • Their FAQ states: “All members of the military have the right, and in some cases have the duty, to refuse illegal orders.” Military Law Task Force
    • They point to the Rules for Courts-Martial, which note that an order is not binding when it's “patently illegal … such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” Military Law Task Force
  5. International / Constitutional Principle
    • Under international law and U.S. constitutional law, there is precedent (e.g., Nuremberg principles) that “following orders” is not a defense for illegal acts. veteransforpeace.org+1
    • A law-scholar paper (Loyola) notes: “Orders that are ultra vires (beyond legal authority) cannot create a duty” — i.e., unlawful orders don’t carry legal weight. lawscholars.luc.edu
  6. Duty under Oath
    • Military personnel swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution”, not to follow any order blindly. Military Law Task Force+1
    • The Military Law Task Force also underscores that “your oath is to the Constitution … not to the Commander-in-Chief or to any other individual.” Military Law Task Force


Interpretation for Law Enforcement / Non-Military Government Officials​


  • While a lot of explicit written policy relates to the military, analogous constitutional and duty-of-law principles apply more broadly to government officials: their ultimate allegiance is to the law and the Constitution, not to unlawful commands.
  • For law enforcement, the principle is similar: no legal duty to execute orders that are illegal or violate constitutional rights; officers have a responsibility to refuse such orders (especially those commanding criminal acts or rights violations). This is supported in public-law analysis (e.g., LegalClarity’s summary). LegalClarity


🧾 Summary​


  • There are multiple formal and legal policy sources (military law, operational law, UCMJ, international law) that affirm a duty (or at least a right) to disobey clearly unlawful orders.
  • The justification is rooted in both domestic military law (UCMJ) and international legal principles.

acpum5.jpg
 
AProudLefty said:
By advising them not to follow unlawful orders which could get them in trouble?
Click to expand...
Everyone in the military already knows that. They said the Administration is pitting Americans against Americans and insinuated the COC was giving illegal orders but they never specified what illegal orders triggered them to make the video. So what was their intent?
Jarod said:
Illegal under the law.
Click to expand...
Like not following orders from the Commander in Chief
 
FastLane said:
Everyone in the military already knows that. They said the Administration is pitting Americans against Americans and insinuated the COC was giving illegal orders but they never specified what illegal orders triggered them to make the video. So what was their intent?

Like not following orders from the Commander in Chief
Click to expand...
Do the MAGA troops know?

Anyway you now understand and that's what important.
 
christiefan915 said:
"U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.

Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense."

www.military.com

4 Out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders

With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.
www.military.com www.military.com
Click to expand...
I'd say the chances of some enlisted being given an illegal order is near zero. It's a canard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top