212
'Rebellion!' Stephen Miller flips out after Dems tell troops to 'refuse illegal orders'
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
212 points (99.1% liked)
politics
26409 readers
2312 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It does, however, require you to swear or affirm that you will follow the orders of the President, and the UCMJ puts the onus on the accusing service member to prove that an order is unlawful. It's a lot to ask of service members that likely only joined because they needed college money.
I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."
Officers do NOT follow unlawful orders.
Period ... see the period? That ended the sentence.
LAWFUL ORDERS.
Look, you don't need a JAG officer on standby to know you're not supposed to open up on a crowd of fuckin kids. This really isn't the ambiguous terrain you're making it out to be.
Would it be better to have an executive branch that wasn't a fucking traitorous pile of garbage? OF COURSE.
And we don't have to say "so help me god" unless we want to. Affirming your oath is fine.
The problem is that the UCMJ puts the onus on the "accuser" to prove that the order was unlawful. It's an awful lot to ask of a public servant. The whole situation sucks.
This administration is built on the concept of gradually but continually pushing the boundaries of what's legal. First it's using federal troops to guard CBP as they violate constitutional rights, then it's murdering unnamed persons in boats in the Caribbean. Next will be something just a little bit more illegal, and eventually there may come a day where there's something as clear cut as opening up on a crowd of kids. But by then, how are a few troops supposed to prove that this is illegal while not speaking up about whatever they did last? Not to mention the longer this goes on the more they organize the command structure by loyalty over competence.
I don't think we can rely on waiting for a clear cut example like yours, people in power need to be pushing back now or it will be too late
Plus if the order that has made its way down to enlisted in such a way that the enlisted has to determine if it's illegal or not, then theres a bigger problem.
If officers can give the order to hold any return fire, then they can also give the order to do something that is not illegal.
Chain of command is a powerful structure
Agreed, but the order is not always so clearly unlawful. You pretty much do need a lawyer on standby to challenge violations of Posse Comitatus. It is the servicemember's duty to refuse to conduct domestic law enforcement activities like deportation, for example, but they can be required to support those same activities in other ways.
That's the enlisted oath, the officer's oath has no such obligation.
Ahh, I was enlisted so I don't know what the officer's oath says.
Its not the best production value, but I helped put this together last year:
https://youtu.be/HsrwIJcxYWY?t=529
Thank you for sharing! Added it to my watch list.