Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Its literally your job to refuse an illegal order as a US service member.
thank god we take the oath the constitution and not goblin himmler
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)."
That's the enlisted oath, the officer's oath has no such obligation.
It does, however, require you to swear or affirm that you will follow the orders of the President,
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Its not the best production value, but I helped put this together last year:
Rebellion!
If it walks like a Stephen Miller and quacks like a Stephen Miller, it is probably a nazi.
An admission that orders issued soon will be illegal
Already are
Also true
It's pretty fucked up that we're at the point of relying on service members to decide that an order is unlawful. The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't exactly side with the military members in this instance, but it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it. Here are some crib notes from the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
United States v. Sterling, 75 M.J. 407 (a lawful order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service).
(the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order).
(an order is presumed to be lawful, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption).
(to be lawful, an order must (1) have a valid military purpose, and (2) be clear, specific, and narrowly drawn; in addition, the order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order).
If chain of command is always followed, then the orders will be neutered before they can be carried out.
While any superior officer can circumvent subordinates, as far as I understand it, this would be highly unusual, insulting, and self-disparaging. Technically Miller himself could give the orders to specific troops to carry out, but as soon as his orders are issued, the troops commanding officer can belay those and issue their own.
There is a reason tyrants don't like chain of command.
He‘s wrong on so many levels. He doesn’t even get the name of the party right. It’s the Democrat_**ic **_ party.
They do that deliberately. You see that a lot among Republicans. I assume it's similar motivations as when they say the US is "a republic, not a democracy". Apparently it irks them that they have democracy in the name.
Yeah, I know. It seems so childish.
Raving lunatic
Troops don't have Trumpy immunity, they should tread carefully when ordered to violate the constitution while orange Hitler bypasses congress in his new wars
Identifying sociopathy involves recognizing specific signs and symptoms. Here are common indicators:
Sociopaths often ignore rules and boundaries, engaging in illegal or unethical behaviors without remorse.
Sociopaths tell lies with ease, using them to gain trust or manipulate others. They may present a false image of themselves to achieve their goals.
Sociopaths struggle to maintain deep relationships, often viewing others as tools for personal benefit.
Sociopaths frequently seek new thrills. This need for stimulation can lead to risky behavior and frequent changes in jobs or relationships.
Sociopaths may exhibit aggressive behaviors when challenged or threatened, leading to conflicts in various settings.
Personally, a user made summary or even just copy pasting some of the more compelling bullet points would be preferable to AI summary.
It’s copied directly from the article.
Weird, I scrolled through but didn’t see any of the ✅emojis and assumed it was. Either way, my bad.
Emojis and links added for effect :)
Haha shit, how embarrassing for me.
ᛋᛋtephen Miller is a piece of shit
"Rebellion!" Screams the chronic angry man who is giving illegal orders that would be treason, regardless of who is giving the order.
After all this is over and Stephen Miller is placed under arrest or whatever else it may be, I will celebrate in the streets.
That mouth looks like it does the same things as Trump’s mouth
Rapes women and children or the sucking presidential dick?
Yes.
I don't know how to archive videos on x, but here it is: https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/1990774492356902948
