Smells like a coup to me

QP! said:
And yet that is EXACTLY what they teach them in Military Academy and have for decades on decades.

Even though soldiers are not lawyers, they want them to know 'just following orders' will not protect them from court martial and jail, if they are given an illegal order and they follow it.

And that soldier has to determine that. If he can access a JAG or others in command great. Get that back up. But if they are out in the war theater and a superior gives them an illegal order (kill those civilians) and they do not refuse, they will go to jail.
Click to expand...
It’s not something the Russian military knows about

His programmer has never been outside of Siberia let alone Russia
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Nope. That's a legal opinion from a district court judge that was overturned by the 9th Circuit.



So, the order was legal. At the troop level, refusing to obey it would have been career ending.

Also, by six Democrats in Congress jumping into this mess, they are muddying the waters in a way that harms the troops and implies mutiny.
Click to expand...
Nope. They never told them to disobey legal orders.

You and others are the ones trying to muddy the waters.
 
AProudLefty said:
Third thread on this.
Click to expand...

Three threads is ok. The receptionist has nearly a dozen currently running on Epstein.
AProudLefty said:
AI Overview
View attachment 65729
View attachment 65730
View attachment 65731
+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
Click to expand...

Most military members are not lawyers.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Nope. That's a legal opinion from a district court judge that was overturned by the 9th Circuit.



So, the order was legal. At the troop level, refusing to obey it would have been career ending.

Also, by six Democrats in Congress jumping into this mess, they are muddying the waters in a way that harms the troops and implies mutiny.
Click to expand...
To clarify, you and others are muddying the waters by claiming that they told them to disobey lawful orders.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It reinforces my point. In war, the victors determine who are the criminals and what crimes they committed. The victors don't try their own side for such things, after all, they won.
Click to expand...
And then the world calls them war criminals and punishes them

You are a sociopathic evil fuck
 
AProudLefty said:
To clarify, you and others are muddying the waters by claiming that they told them to disobey lawful orders.
Click to expand...
They implied it by saying that what are legal orders might be questionable if you disagree with them on political grounds, like deploying national guard to various cities with massive rioting going on.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They implied it by saying that what are legal orders might be questionable if you disagree with them on political grounds, like deploying national guard to various cities with massive rioting going on.
Click to expand...
Again, quote them. I've seen the video.

Did or did not they tell them to disobey legal orders as claimed?

Yes or no?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It reinforces my point. In war, the victors determine who are the criminals and what crimes they committed. The victors don't try their own side for such things, after all, they won.
Click to expand...

Being protected from your criminality =/= no criminality happening.

If Trump military officials break current federal law (kill unarmed civilians) they committed a crime even if Trumps military or DoJ refuses to prosecute.

You are trying to argue that as long as Trump holds power forever there was no crime then and what you are saying is wrong.

They are SHIELDED only and as soon as they lose power you can and do see those people subjected to the law.

So if you are the soldier, given that illegal order (Kill those unarmed civilians) you should refuse, even though Terry will tell you 'you have to follow that order and just hope Trump always has power and then you will not prosecuted'.


Only a stupid person thinks the way you do Terry. Only a stupid person would tell those soldiers they have to break current law, if ordered to by Trump regime but that they will be fine as long as Trump always stays in power or those sympathetic to him do.
 
AProudLefty said:
Third thread on this.

AI Overview
View attachment 65729
View attachment 65730
View attachment 65731
+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
Click to expand...
OMG, Lefty is our AI guru now? If you had two functioning brain cells, you’d know what questions to actually ask. Instead you’re out here regurgitating blue-check talking points.

Start with the basics, genius: name one single unlawful order that’s been issued. Just one. You can’t, because there isn’t one. Yet TDS-riddled politicians on your side are out there telling uniformed personnel to refuse “unlawful orders” without citing a single statute, regulation, or UCMJ article. That’s not principled stand-taking, that’s textbook incitement to mutiny. You’d need an airtight, bulletproof legal case before you open your mouth with that language. But nah, you’re too far gone, too low-IQ, too busy fellating AI and click-bait to understand basic chain-of-command or reality.

Meanwhile your mentally ill talking heads have produced exactly zero examples. Zero. So guess what that makes their little stunt? Actual, no-shit insurrection, look it up, I’ll wait while you ask your AI mommy to read the definition to you.

We’re not talking about grandmas walking through velvet ropes on January 6th with zero priors and zero evidence of intent to overthrow anything. Only radical, brain-rotted libtards still pretend that was a coup. That said, the Biden DOJ had no problem charging and threatening good people with 20 years hard time if they didn't sign on the dotted line.

These politicians need to resign yesterday: resign in disgrace at minimum, then get fitted for orange jumpsuits and a lovely 8×10 cell with all-inclusive room and board. Bars on the windows, the whole five-star experience. That’s the only appropriate retirement plan for seditious garbage who think they’re above the oath they swore.
 
Tobytone said:
OMG, Lefty is our AI guru now? If you had two functioning brain cells, you’d know what questions to actually ask. Instead you’re out here regurgitating blue-check talking points.

Start with the basics, genius: name one single unlawful order that’s been issued. Just one. You can’t, because there isn’t one. Yet TDS-riddled politicians on your side are out there telling uniformed personnel to refuse “unlawful orders” without citing a single statute, regulation, or UCMJ article. That’s not principled stand-taking, that’s textbook incitement to mutiny. You’d need an airtight, bulletproof legal case before you open your mouth with that language. But nah, you’re too far gone, too low-IQ, too busy fellating AI and click-bait to understand basic chain-of-command or reality.

Meanwhile your mentally ill talking heads have produced exactly zero examples. Zero. So guess what that makes their little stunt? Actual, no-shit insurrection, look it up, I’ll wait while you ask your AI mommy to read the definition to you.

We’re not talking about grandmas walking through velvet ropes on January 6th with zero priors and zero evidence of intent to overthrow anything. Only radical, brain-rotted libtards still pretend that was a coup. That said, the Biden DOJ had no problem charging and threatening good people with 20 years hard time if they didn't sign on the dotted line.

These politicians need to resign yesterday: resign in disgrace at minimum, then get fitted for orange jumpsuits and a lovely 8×10 cell with all-inclusive room and board. Bars on the windows, the whole five-star experience. That’s the only appropriate retirement plan for seditious garbage who think they’re above the oath they swore.
Click to expand...
Already named one. And it's irrelevant anyway as those Democrats never told them to disobey lawful orders.
 
Tobytone said:
OMG, Lefty is our AI guru now? If you had two functioning brain cells, you’d know what questions to actually ask. Instead you’re out here regurgitating blue-check talking points.

Start with the basics, genius: name one single unlawful order that’s been issued. Just one. You can’t, because there isn’t one. Yet TDS-riddled politicians on your side are out there telling uniformed personnel to refuse “unlawful orders” without citing a single statute, regulation, or UCMJ article. That’s not principled stand-taking, that’s textbook incitement to mutiny. You’d need an airtight, bulletproof legal case before you open your mouth with that language. But nah, you’re too far gone, too low-IQ, too busy fellating AI and click-bait to understand basic chain-of-command or reality.

Meanwhile your mentally ill talking heads have produced exactly zero examples. Zero. So guess what that makes their little stunt? Actual, no-shit insurrection, look it up, I’ll wait while you ask your AI mommy to read the definition to you.

We’re not talking about grandmas walking through velvet ropes on January 6th with zero priors and zero evidence of intent to overthrow anything. Only radical, brain-rotted libtards still pretend that was a coup. That said, the Biden DOJ had no problem charging and threatening good people with 20 years hard time if they didn't sign on the dotted line.

These politicians need to resign yesterday: resign in disgrace at minimum, then get fitted for orange jumpsuits and a lovely 8×10 cell with all-inclusive room and board. Bars on the windows, the whole five-star experience. That’s the only appropriate retirement plan for seditious garbage who think they’re above the oath they swore.
Click to expand...
Fuck you


TROOPS WILL DENY TRUMPS ORDERS TO KILL AMERICANS


you can’t win you fucking racist ass loser
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They implied it by saying that what are legal orders might be questionable if you disagree with them on political grounds, like deploying national guard to various cities with massive rioting going on.
Click to expand...
T. A. Gardner said:
They implied that Trump is issuing illegal orders and that they--the troops--should question or disobey them.
Click to expand...

"implied"... "implied"

I want everyone to notice Terry's entire reason to say they are attempting a coup or sedition is based on what he reads between the lines and thinks they "implied".

He CANNOT use what they said, as his rationale and instead wants everyone to agree first with his interpretation of what is "implied" and then to say they are guilty based on that.

You cannot make up this level of stupidity. This is not even 'thought police' which Terry has accused others of prior and is instead 'what i think they are thinking... police'. 'They are guilty of bad things because i am assuming they mean things they are not saying.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top