The left can't win elections without their style of Dem Democracy, in this case  encouraging military to disobey orders from the Commander & chief.

Six Congressional Democrats urge military members to 'refuse illegal orders' in new video

 

"Slotkin and her colleagues have spent recent weeks introducing legislation to limit President Trump’s ability to deploy National Guard members domestically or launch military action against narcoterrorists without congressional approval".

"None of that context appears in the video, titled "Don’t Give Up the Ship," which instead frames the appeal as a warning to military members to "stand up for our laws" and "refuse unlawful orders."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds

 

The Story is based on a FoxNews report

Is there anything wrong with refusing unlawful orders?

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Is there anything wrong with refusing unlawful orders?

If they are unconstitutional then they are duty bound to refuse them, regardless of the consequences.

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Is there anything wrong with refusing unlawful orders?

Not if they are clearly unlawful...such as My Lai or Abu Gahraib. Unfortunately, the legal question is usually wrapped in a lot more nuance. t's not always clear to the non-legal expert especially when orders are given in a chaotic situation. A serviceman who follows his emotional hunch and refuses may well find himself in a military court. If the judge then determines the order was lawful, then they might be busted in rank, serve time, followed by a dishonorable discharge that will make it more difficult to find a job back in the civilian world

No one is above the law. They should be investigated.

14 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

No one is above the law. They should be investigated.

Since the law is very clear on the matter of not obeying illegal orders, then in what way are these Senators (who after all are responsible for making the law) setting themselves above the law?

7 minutes ago, JAG said:

Since the law is very clear on the matter of not obeying illegal orders, then in what way are these Senators (who after all are responsible for making the law) setting themselves above the law?

Nice try. Guess you didnt hear what they said.

 

Doesnt matter, a Grand Jury will decide.

10 hours ago, riclag said:

 The left can't win elections without their style of Dem Democracy, in this case  encouraging military to disobey orders from the Commander & chief.

Six Congressional Democrats urge military members to 'refuse illegal orders' in new video

 

"Slotkin and her colleagues have spent recent weeks introducing legislation to limit President Trump’s ability to deploy National Guard members domestically or launch military action against narcoterrorists without congressional approval".

"None of that context appears in the video, titled "Don’t Give Up the Ship," which instead frames the appeal as a warning to military members to "stand up for our laws" and "refuse unlawful orders."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds

 

The Story is based on a FoxNews report

During the Nuremberg trials, the defense of, "I was just following orders," was rejected and those engaged in murder were hanged. In 2025, those strikes on boats traveling on the open seas are illegal and an extrajudicial murder.  In the future those engaged in those murders may end up before an international tribunal.  The term, "Narcoterrorist" is a fabricated word that is meant to buy US public sentiment in order to agree with the murders.  But the fact is that the term Narcoterrorist and the extrajudicial murders as being used to frame Venezuela as threat to the US (it's not) and then used as the excuse to invade - illegally.  The US State Department could make a ham sandwich into a Nacroterrorst given sufficient propaganda.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Is there anything wrong with refusing unlawful orders?

In the US military?  Yeah - it can get you court-martialed.  But if you are ordered to murder a civilian, it's an illegal order.  Troops are between a rock and a hard place.

8 minutes ago, connda said:

In the US military?  Yeah - it can get you court-martialed.  But if you are ordered to murder a civilian, it's an illegal order.  Troops are between a rock and a hard place.

Thanks.

 

My question was a rhetorical one, especially aimed at Riclag for his OP.

They are duty bound to reject unlawful orders, like the killing of civilians like 'narcoterrorists'.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

No one is above the law. They should be investigated.

Who should be investigated? And for what?

It is my fervent prayer that the top Military get together and take back America, and return it to its rightful place of honor and trust on the world stage, rather than the circus that it is now with its psychotic ringmaster.
I DO believe that in the next election, the MAGAs will be shown the door, but it will take too many years to remove the stains and duplicities of the current administration that way. Only a coup will bring back the reputation that America had in the World standings.
That... and removing all that gold crap from the Oval Office.

 

Please come home mom.

5 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

That... and removing all that gold crap from the Oval Office.

Sell it off like the Bolshies did. Buy bullets for the shooting grounds.

 

 

Collective statement (all six lawmakers together):

 

“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.”

 

Rep. Chris Deluzio (D‑Pa., Navy veteran):

 

“You must refuse illegal orders.”

 

Group statement (Slotkin, Kelly, Deluzio, Houlahan, Goodlander, and one additional member):

 

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.” — This line sets up the reminder about refusing illegal orders

 

So was this about refusing to obey illegal orders?

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Sell it off like the Bolshies did. Buy bullets for the shooting grounds.

 

No... Buy food and warm clothing for the homeless.
Buy medicines and health supplies for those in need.

Buy school books for the children.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Nice try. Guess you didnt hear what they said.

 

Doesnt matter, a Grand Jury will decide.

Like they did (or perhaps didn't) in the decision to indict Comey?

55 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

I DO believe that in the next election, the MAGAs will be shown the door,

 

"I DO believe that in the next election, the MAGAs will be shown the door,"..........and replaced by what?  The other members of the two party duopoly?  But I do agree with you - I fully expect the Republicans to get crushed come the Mid-Terms in 2026 and the General Election in 2028.  But they will not be replaced by anything better.  Just another version of the pond scum which IS Washington DC.  

1 hour ago, connda said:

In the US military?  Yeah - it can get you court-martialed.  But if you are ordered to murder a civilian, it's an illegal order.

Correct.

1 hour ago, connda said:

Troops are between a rock and a hard place.

Not necessarily, as rules of engagement is part of military training in the US.

3 hours ago, shdmn said:

If they are unconstitutional then they are duty bound to refuse them, regardless of the consequences.

Perhaps just simply ignoring the order as a way off. Many people have been court-martialed for opening their mouths.

1 hour ago, FolkGuitar said:

Military get together and take back America

That would be illegal.

No. Not when it comes from a circus goombahs like Pete Hesgeth, or Donald Trump. I'm guessing at this point the military utterly despises them both, and has a great deal of contempt for the command structure at this point. 

 

Hegseth is inept and a poor cabinet secretary. Trump oftentimes will confuse a polished presentation with one of substance, and Hegseth embarrassed himself and his nation deeply with his ridiculous speech about being overly aggressive, and not following any aspect of the Geneva Convention, while pursuing the enemy. The military does not pay him any regard other than the fact that they are forced to obey the chain of command. My guess is that the man is an absolute laughing stock throughout all ranks and files, we witnessed the somber tone on the faces of the high ranking officers, Admirals and Generals, and the rather astonishing lack of applause for either Petie or Donnie. 

 

Hesgeth is likely the least qualified and the most partisan of anyone in his position in American history. The man is such a lightweight he would have been under qualified to run the San Diego chapter of the Boy Scouts. 

24 minutes ago, JAG said:

Like they did (or perhaps didn't) in the decision to indict Comey?

Criminal Defense Attorneys are Liberty's Last Champions. Plus you get to meet all sorts of scumbags and get the real skinny.

1 hour ago, FolkGuitar said:

 

No... Buy food and warm clothing for the homeless.
Buy medicines and health supplies for those in need.

Buy school books for the children.

Translation: Fund more useless leftist grifters.

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Criminal Defense Attorneys are Liberty's Last Champions. Plus you get to meet all sorts of scumbags and get the real skinny.

Umh, the shenanigans in the shambolic Grand Jury Indictment (or not!) in the case of Comey was the work of the prosecuting attorney, as would any investigation and prosecution of these Senators. Wouldn't it need a "Special Prosecutor" to start the ball rolling?

4 minutes ago, novacova said:

Correct.

Not necessarily, as rules of engagement is part of military training in the US.

Perhaps just simply ignoring the order as a way off. Many people have been court-martialed for opening their mouths.

That would be illegal.

A Pinch  yourself moment,  the Dems are calling for the military to essentially stand down , why its not clear, legal vs illegal . One was promoting a bill for  no military being sent to quell disturbances .Most of the disturbances where the military was sent in over the years was created in dem controlled jurisdictions. 

https://www.nationalguard.mil/Portals/31/Resources/Fact Sheets/Civil Disturbance Operations Fact Sheet (Nov 2020).pdf

 

1 hour ago, FolkGuitar said:

 

No... Buy food and warm clothing for the homeless.
Buy medicines and health supplies for those in need.

Buy school books for the children.

 

17 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Translation: Fund more useless leftist grifters.

Your compassion leaves me speechless. 
Did you forget that you are the party of ‘Christian Values?’

If this is an example of Christian values, I can now understand how we had the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Hunts. 
I do believe you would have ratted out Ann Frank. 

5 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

I do believe you would have ratted out Ann Frank. 

Nice hyperbole, hows the homeless doing in California? 

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

No one is above the law. They should be investigated.

Like your god the grifter.

Does no one think it strange that with a heck load of warships in the Caribbean they have not even bothered to capture one of those boats and searched it, then photographed the cargo - before murdering the crew?

42 minutes ago, novacova said:

Correct.

Not necessarily, as rules of engagement is part of military training in the US.

Perhaps just simply ignoring the order as a way off. Many people have been court-martialed for opening their mouths.

That would be illegal.

As is murdering civilians on small boats in international waters under ANY excuse. The order to do so is an illegal order, no matter WHO gives that order, and the responsibility goes all the way up from the person who actually gave that order to the person in charge of the military and beyond, unless a specific order not to do so, in writing, has been issued.

48 minutes ago, novacova said:

2 hours ago, connda said:

Troops are between a rock and a hard place.

Not necessarily, as rules of engagement is part of military training in the US.

Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is also required training.  I retired from the military years ago but I recall it was training required at least annually.  The squadron also had refresher training before any deployment.

 

The term "illegal orders", used by the 6 Dem members of Congress, didn't contain any specifics.  Obviously, being ordered to shoot/kill an innocent civilian would be illegal.  However, it today's battlefield, the enemy combatants aren't so easily easily distinguishable...meaning the enemy doesn't necessarily wear a uniform.