Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

ASEAN NOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Trump Says Dem Lawmakers Urged ‘Sedition Punishable by Death'

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post
5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Thing is what unlawful orders have been given. Along with this is the fact that military personel are well aware of what constitutes an illegal order.


Some fodder for your strawman…
 

Trump's past illegal orders

Every one of these was a direct military order he gave — stopped only because they were unlawful or reckless.

  • He told the military to ‘shoot them in the legs’ during the George Floyd protests.

  • He pushed to deploy the 82nd Airborne — active-duty Army combat troops — into U.S. cities during the Floyd protests. (Troop-deployment order.)

  • He then demanded those same troops ‘dominate’ American streets — calling them a ‘battlespace’. (Use-of-force order.)

  • He ordered advisers to get the military to seize state voting machines — something the armed forces cannot legally do.

  • He told the Pentagon to ‘take the oil’ in Syria and Iraq — openly describing a war crime.

  • After Jan 6, he ordered Milley to prepare 10,000 troops for D.C.

  • He pushed Milley to be ready for a strike on Iran.

  • He signed an immediate Afghanistan withdrawal order — bypassing the Joint Chiefs and standard military process.

 

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-protests.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-troops/trump-wanted-10000-troops-in-washington-dc-official-says-idUSKBN23E0EU
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/18/us/politics/trump-voting-machines-sidney-powell.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/keeping-oil-syria-trump-considered-war-crime/story?id=66589757
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/george-floyd-mark-esper-opposes-trump-threat-deploy-military
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/06/23/trump-10000-troops-january6/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/08/inside-the-war-between-trump-and-his-generals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/21/trump-afghanistan-withdrawal-memo/

 

  • Replies 144
  • Views 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Hilarious that there are still people denying that Trump is a flippin' fascist. There is a DUTY to disobey UNLAWFUL orders. Period. End of story.

  • AI quickie -- Gemini:   This is a crucial and legally complex question. The answer is yes, military personnel have the right, and often the duty, to disobey an order that is clearly or "mani

  • Funny how Trump's asinine behavior since being re-elected has normalized people to something as outrageous as calling for the death of political opponents.  The number of people just on this forum say

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, LosLobo said:


Some fodder for your strawman…

Trump's past illegal orders

Every one of these was a direct military order he gave — stopped only because they were unlawful or reckless.

 • He told the military to ‘shoot them in the legs’ during the George Floyd protests.
 • He pushed to deploy the 82nd Airborne — active-duty Army combat troops — into U.S. cities during the Floyd protests. (Troop-deployment order.)
 • He then demanded those same troops ‘dominate’ American streets — calling them a ‘battlespace’. (Use-of-force order.)
 • He ordered advisers to get the military to seize state voting machines — something the armed forces cannot legally do.
 • He told the Pentagon to ‘take the oil’ in Syria and Iraq — openly describing a war crime.
 • After Jan 6, he ordered Milley to prepare 10,000 troops for D.C.
 • He pushed Milley to be ready for a strike on Iran.
 • He signed an immediate Afghanistan withdrawal order — bypassing the Joint Chiefs and standard military process.

 

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-protests.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-troops/trump-wanted-10000-troops-in-washington-dc-official-says-idUSKBN23E0EU
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/18/us/politics/trump-voting-machines-sidney-powell.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/keeping-oil-syria-trump-considered-war-crime/story?id=66589757
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/george-floyd-mark-esper-opposes-trump-threat-deploy-military
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/06/23/trump-10000-troops-january6/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/08/inside-the-war-between-trump-and-his-generals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/21/trump-afghanistan-withdrawal-memo/

 

So nothing latley, and no one punished for not carrying out orders, thanks. 

2 hours ago, animalmagic said:

Sedition is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.  In America's case the authority of the state is the Constitution not the President who is legally bound by the Constitution.  Disobeying clearly unlawful orders is prescribed by the Constitution.  So, unless Trump is declaring himself a monarch...........

 

Very good explanation of what is sedition, and who should be on trial for it.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/04/trump-uphold-constitution-meet-press/83443676007/

 

WASHINGTON ‒ President Donald Trump said he does not know whether he's required to uphold the U.S. Constitution as president in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

  • Popular Post
32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

To some on here, to paraphrase the old Anita Bryant orange juice ad:

 

A day without a MAGA put-down is like a day without sunshine.

How original. But not really the same as being a lefty on here is kinda like a rooter for the Chicago Cubs who gets the other side to say 'loser' 'winning' 'get over it snow flake' and your posterior must hurt.

 

And should you quote something from President Trump especially on Truth Social you get hear:

 

That's just Trump being Trump

That's just Trump speaking the language of the common man

That's just Trump playing with the demo's heads

That's just Trump playing 3-dimensional chess

Or That's just Trump playing Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football

 

... or just 'That's why you lost'.
 

 

 

11 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

How original. But not really the same as being a lefty on here is kinda like a rooter for the Chicago Cubs who gets the other side to say 'loser' 'winning' 'get over it snow flake' and your posterior must hurt.

 

And should you quote something from President Trump especially on Truth Social you get hear:

 

That's just Trump being Trump

That's just Trump speaking the language of the common man

That's just Trump playing with the demo's heads

That's just Trump playing 3-dimensional chess

Or That's just Trump playing Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football

 

... or just 'That's why you lost'.
 

 

 

I know

21 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Very good explanation of what is sedition, and who should be on trial for it.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/04/trump-uphold-constitution-meet-press/83443676007/

 

WASHINGTON ‒ President Donald Trump said he does not know whether he's required to uphold the U.S. Constitution as president in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

That says it all really. Has the brain of a peanut. And the ability to run a bussiness  is zero.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I know

Well if one doesn't want to deal with the unlevel playing field, one can stick with the Pub.

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Well if one doesn't want to deal with the unlevel playing field, one can stick with the Pub.

I know that as well

  • Popular Post
4 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Not unlawful oders. Try again.

OK. Challenge accepted.

 

Here's a ChatGPT analysis of the facts, including judicial decisions designating various of Trump's orders as unlawful.  Keep in mind that, from a service member's perspective, a judicially defined unlawful act remains an unlawful act until such time as an Appeal to a higher court is successful (if at all):  

 

ChatGPT (as of 21 November 2025)

Short answer: during his current (second) term, there have been some Trump orders to the military/National Guard that federal courts have already found unlawful, plus others that are under active legal challenge or criticized as violating international law. But there is no single authoritative “master list”, and in several cases appeals are still underway.

Below is a careful breakdown of what’s actually been ruled unlawful so far, and what is still just alleged or contested.


1. Los Angeles: National Guard & Marines (June 2025)

What happened

  • On 7 June 2025, Trump federalized the California National Guard and sent Guard troops and later Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration raids, despite the California governor’s objection. (FactCheck.org)

Court rulings

  • California sued, arguing the deployment violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s authority under Title 10 (the federal statutes governing use of the Guard).

  • In early September 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s use of soldiers in Los Angeles was illegal, finding that the conditions required under federal law (rebellion or inability to execute the laws) were not met and ordering the Guard returned to state control. (Brennan Center for Justice)

  • The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then temporarily stayed Breyer’s order, allowing the federalization to continue while the appeal proceeds. That means:

    • At the district court level, the LA deployment has been found unlawful.

    • But the final word from higher courts is still pending.

So, strictly legally: the order federalizing and using the California National Guard in LA has been held unlawful by one federal court, though that finding is on appeal.


2. Portland, Oregon: Attempted National Guard deployments (Sept–Nov 2025)

What happened

  • In late September 2025, Trump announced that he had directed the Defense Department to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard (and later, Guard units from other states such as California) to Portland to deal with relatively small protests at an ICE facility, characterizing the city as “war-ravaged”. (The Guardian)

  • An internal presidential memo (June 7, 2025) that also covered these deployments described protests that interfered with ICE operations as a “rebellion” justifying use of troops. (Portland.gov)

Court rulings

  • Temporary restraining orders (TROs):

    • In early October 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued TROs blocking Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon Guard, then a broader order blocking deployment of any state’s Guard to Oregon after the administration tried to send California troops instead. (ABC News)

  • Final decision (7 November 2025):

    • After trial, Judge Immergut issued a 100-page final decision in State of Oregon & City of Portland v. Trump, holding that Trump “did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard” for this purpose and that the planned deployments “exceeded the president’s authority.” She issued a permanent injunction blocking the deployment. (opb)

Appeals

  • A 9th Circuit panel later ruled that Trump likely has constitutional authority to take command of certain Guard units in some circumstances—but a second restraining order still bars actual deployment in Oregon, and litigation continues. (AP News)

So here, Trump’s orders to federalize and deploy National Guard units to Portland have been held unlawful and permanently enjoined by a federal district court, again subject to ongoing appeals.


3. Other domestic National Guard / troop deployments

Trump’s current-term strategy of using the Guard or other forces domestically (e.g., crime “crackdowns” in Washington, D.C., and proposed deployments to Chicago and elsewhere) has drawn legal challenges and criticism, mainly under:

  • Posse Comitatus Act (limits federal troops in domestic law enforcement),

  • Title 10 / Insurrection Act provisions, and

  • Tenth Amendment (state sovereignty). (Wikipedia)

As of now:

  • Some deployments (LA, Portland) have been explicitly found unlawful by district courts, as above.

  • Other deployments or threatened deployments are contested but not yet definitively ruled illegal nationwide; courts and commentators are still wrestling with how far a president can go in using the Guard without state consent.


4. Lethal military action against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers

This is not National Guard but orders to U.S. military forces, so it’s relevant to your question.

What happened

  • Reports in August–September 2025 describe a secret presidential decree in which Trump designated some Latin American drug cartels as “terrorist” organizations and authorized the Pentagon to use military force against them. (The Guardian)

  • Under this policy, U.S. forces killed 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers in international waters, with media and human-rights accounts indicating there was no attempt to interdict or arrest, but rather a direct lethal strike. (The Guardian)

Legal status

  • Human-rights groups and legal experts argue this amounts to extrajudicial execution and violates international human rights law and the law of armed conflict (because mere designation as “terrorists” does not create a lawful armed-conflict context, and lethal force is only justified against an imminent threat). (The Guardian)

  • However, as of now, no U.S. court has formally ruled that this specific order or operation was unlawful, and no U.S. service member has (publicly) been prosecuted for carrying it out. The claims of illegality are therefore legal critiques, not judicial findings—at least yet.


5. Things often discussed but not clearly “unlawful orders” (in a narrow legal sense)

A few related points that sometimes get mixed in, but don’t (yet) amount to formally recognized unlawful orders:

  • Rhetoric about “illegal orders” and the troops:

    • In November 2025, Trump condemned Democrats who released a video reminding troops they must refuse illegal orders, calling the video “seditious” and saying those lawmakers “deserve death,” though the White House later walked that back. (Reuters)

    • That episode is about rhetoric and political conflict, not a specific adjudicated unlawful order by Trump himself.

  • “Shoot them in the legs” remarks:

    • Reporting from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper recounts Trump (during his first term) asking whether protesters could be shot “in the legs.” That was rejected by officials and never issued as a formal order, and it predates his current tenure. (The Guardian)


Pulling it together

If we stick to a strict legal standard—orders that courts have already found unlawful during Trump’s current term, we mainly have:

  1. The order federalizing and deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles in June 2025, which a federal district court found violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded statutory authority (though the ruling has been stayed on appeal). (Brennan Center for Justice)

  2. The attempted federalization and deployment of Oregon (and California) National Guard troops to Portland in September–October 2025, which another federal district court permanently enjoined, holding Trump lacked lawful authority and exceeded his powers. (opb)

Beyond those, there are serious, ongoing legal and human-rights challenges to:

  • his broader pattern of domestic Guard deployments, and

  • his secret decree authorizing military killings of alleged traffickers,

but those have not yet produced definitive, final judicial determinations that the underlying orders to military personnel are unlawful.


 

Trump is disgusting for sure but there are problems with not obeying unlawful orders.

Soldiers aren't genetically legal scholars so realistically they will.follow orders that they think might be unlawful but they re not certain.

Most will also follow clearly unlawful orders because disobeying any order requires a level of courage most people don't have.

But regardless its important that the value  of having the right to not follow unlawful orders continues .to be respected.

Trump on the other hand deserves no respect.

3 minutes ago, Tranquility said:

OK. Challenge accepted.

 

Here's a ChatGPT analysis of the facts, including judicial decisions designating various of Trump's orders as unlawful.  Keep in mind that, from a service member's perspective, a judicially defined unlawful act remains an unlawful act until such time as an Appeal to a higher court is successful (if at all):  

 

ChatGPT (as of 21 November 2025)

Short answer: during his current (second) term, there have been some Trump orders to the military/National Guard that federal courts have already found unlawful, plus others that are under active legal challenge or criticized as violating international law. But there is no single authoritative “master list”, and in several cases appeals are still underway.

Below is a careful breakdown of what’s actually been ruled unlawful so far, and what is still just alleged or contested.


1. Los Angeles: National Guard & Marines (June 2025)

What happened

  • On 7 June 2025, Trump federalized the California National Guard and sent Guard troops and later Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration raids, despite the California governor’s objection. (FactCheck.org)

Court rulings

  • California sued, arguing the deployment violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s authority under Title 10 (the federal statutes governing use of the Guard).

  • In early September 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s use of soldiers in Los Angeles was illegal, finding that the conditions required under federal law (rebellion or inability to execute the laws) were not met and ordering the Guard returned to state control. (Brennan Center for Justice)

  • The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then temporarily stayed Breyer’s order, allowing the federalization to continue while the appeal proceeds. That means:

    • At the district court level, the LA deployment has been found unlawful.

    • But the final word from higher courts is still pending.

So, strictly legally: the order federalizing and using the California National Guard in LA has been held unlawful by one federal court, though that finding is on appeal.


2. Portland, Oregon: Attempted National Guard deployments (Sept–Nov 2025)

What happened

  • In late September 2025, Trump announced that he had directed the Defense Department to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard (and later, Guard units from other states such as California) to Portland to deal with relatively small protests at an ICE facility, characterizing the city as “war-ravaged”. (The Guardian)

  • An internal presidential memo (June 7, 2025) that also covered these deployments described protests that interfered with ICE operations as a “rebellion” justifying use of troops. (Portland.gov)

Court rulings

  • Temporary restraining orders (TROs):

    • In early October 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued TROs blocking Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon Guard, then a broader order blocking deployment of any state’s Guard to Oregon after the administration tried to send California troops instead. (ABC News)

  • Final decision (7 November 2025):

    • After trial, Judge Immergut issued a 100-page final decision in State of Oregon & City of Portland v. Trump, holding that Trump “did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard” for this purpose and that the planned deployments “exceeded the president’s authority.” She issued a permanent injunction blocking the deployment. (opb)

Appeals

  • A 9th Circuit panel later ruled that Trump likely has constitutional authority to take command of certain Guard units in some circumstances—but a second restraining order still bars actual deployment in Oregon, and litigation continues. (AP News)

So here, Trump’s orders to federalize and deploy National Guard units to Portland have been held unlawful and permanently enjoined by a federal district court, again subject to ongoing appeals.


3. Other domestic National Guard / troop deployments

Trump’s current-term strategy of using the Guard or other forces domestically (e.g., crime “crackdowns” in Washington, D.C., and proposed deployments to Chicago and elsewhere) has drawn legal challenges and criticism, mainly under:

  • Posse Comitatus Act (limits federal troops in domestic law enforcement),

  • Title 10 / Insurrection Act provisions, and

  • Tenth Amendment (state sovereignty). (Wikipedia)

As of now:

  • Some deployments (LA, Portland) have been explicitly found unlawful by district courts, as above.

  • Other deployments or threatened deployments are contested but not yet definitively ruled illegal nationwide; courts and commentators are still wrestling with how far a president can go in using the Guard without state consent.


4. Lethal military action against alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers

This is not National Guard but orders to U.S. military forces, so it’s relevant to your question.

What happened

  • Reports in August–September 2025 describe a secret presidential decree in which Trump designated some Latin American drug cartels as “terrorist” organizations and authorized the Pentagon to use military force against them. (The Guardian)

  • Under this policy, U.S. forces killed 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers in international waters, with media and human-rights accounts indicating there was no attempt to interdict or arrest, but rather a direct lethal strike. (The Guardian)

Legal status

  • Human-rights groups and legal experts argue this amounts to extrajudicial execution and violates international human rights law and the law of armed conflict (because mere designation as “terrorists” does not create a lawful armed-conflict context, and lethal force is only justified against an imminent threat). (The Guardian)

  • However, as of now, no U.S. court has formally ruled that this specific order or operation was unlawful, and no U.S. service member has (publicly) been prosecuted for carrying it out. The claims of illegality are therefore legal critiques, not judicial findings—at least yet.


5. Things often discussed but not clearly “unlawful orders” (in a narrow legal sense)

A few related points that sometimes get mixed in, but don’t (yet) amount to formally recognized unlawful orders:

  • Rhetoric about “illegal orders” and the troops:

    • In November 2025, Trump condemned Democrats who released a video reminding troops they must refuse illegal orders, calling the video “seditious” and saying those lawmakers “deserve death,” though the White House later walked that back. (Reuters)

    • That episode is about rhetoric and political conflict, not a specific adjudicated unlawful order by Trump himself.

  • “Shoot them in the legs” remarks:

    • Reporting from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper recounts Trump (during his first term) asking whether protesters could be shot “in the legs.” That was rejected by officials and never issued as a formal order, and it predates his current tenure. (The Guardian)


Pulling it together

If we stick to a strict legal standard—orders that courts have already found unlawful during Trump’s current term, we mainly have:

  1. The order federalizing and deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles in June 2025, which a federal district court found violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded statutory authority (though the ruling has been stayed on appeal). (Brennan Center for Justice)

  2. The attempted federalization and deployment of Oregon (and California) National Guard troops to Portland in September–October 2025, which another federal district court permanently enjoined, holding Trump lacked lawful authority and exceeded his powers. (opb)

Beyond those, there are serious, ongoing legal and human-rights challenges to:

  • his broader pattern of domestic Guard deployments, and

  • his secret decree authorizing military killings of alleged traffickers,

but those have not yet produced definitive, final judicial determinations that the underlying orders to military personnel are unlawful.


 

So all on appeal and nothing actually determined to be unlawful yet, thanks. 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Trump is disgusting for sure but there are omoroblems with not obeying unlawful orders.

Soldiers aren't genetically legal scholars so realistically they will.follow orders that they think might be unlawful but they re not certain.

Most will also follow clearly unlawful orders because disobeying any order requires a level of courage most people don't have.

But regardless its important that the value  of having the right to unlawful orders continue.to be respected.

Trump on the other hand deserves no respect.

The left deserves no respect 

Could have had a coherent and effective crackdown on immigration, ending H1Bs, not isolating from Allies, no Tech oligarchy in charge, and no histrionic bluster, threats of death, and crawling back . . . if someone sane and capable like DeSantis had been elected instead of Trump.

7 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Sedition is punishable by death. Was what these idiots were saying sedition? Maybe but what it is is really stupid. Calling for military personel to disobey orders is the hight of stupidity.

 

Illegal orders.

 

U.S. military policy states that service members are required to refuse illegal orders, as outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This means that if an order violates the Constitution or U.S. laws, military personnel are not obligated to follow it.

 

Apparently, it's now treason to publicly state the actual regulations contained in the UCMJ..........if it goes against the whims of the king.

 

2 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Illegal orders.

 

U.S. military policy states that service members are required to refuse illegal orders, as outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This means that if an order violates the Constitution or U.S. laws, military personnel are not obligated to follow it.

 

Apparently, it's now treason to publicly state the actual regulations contained in the UCMJ..........if it goes against the whims of the king.

 

No it's not

Thing is, service members following ILLEGAL orders can be prosecuted.

 

This time it could be illegal acts committed in the US punishable by law.

 

"I vass onhly followink orderz" is still not a valid defense.

 

Trump won't have the power to sanction and freeze the assets of US judges like with the ICC.  Not yet, at least.

 

The US State Department announced sanctions on Thursday against four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), targeting them over investigations involving the United States and its ally Israel.

The move follows the designation of ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan in February, under an executive order issued by US President Donald Trump shortly after he was reinaugurated.

 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/profile/four-icc-judges-sanctioned-trump

 

 

 

image.jpeg.93f329f0e5b24e1fb0bf94e9a7cc80e6.jpeg

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No it's not

 

The king disagrees.

 

US President Donald Trump has accused Democratic lawmakers of “seditious behaviour, punishable by death” after they urged military personnel to defy unlawful orders.

Just now, NoDisplayName said:

 

The king disagrees.

 

US President Donald Trump has accused Democratic lawmakers of “seditious behaviour, punishable by death” after they urged military personnel to defy unlawful orders.

Does that make it so?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Does that make it so?

 

Unofficially, yes.

 

We make noises about rule of law and rules based international order, but assassinations and regime changes and kidnapping and torture is a common occurrence overseas.

 

Sometimes we get a memo from a White House lawyer to provide cover, sometimes not.  But we've always got 11 supercarrier fleets to enforce whatever the executive decides to enforce this week.

 

It's when those actions are conducted within the USA that it gets sticky.

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So all on appeal and nothing actually determined to be unlawful yet, thanks. 

Not correct. Deemed unlawful by courts, therefore military should not obey the commands deemed unlawful

  • Popular Post
6 hours ago, dinsdale said:

And all military personel are well aware of this. Now please give examples of UNLAWFUL orders that have been given by Trump. This is just more distraction from the Dems and highly irresponsible.

Bombing at least 16 fishing boats without proof of criminality, murdering the occupants with no due legal processing 

Six "treasonous" Democrats say it is your duty to follow the law and the constitution.

 

“Right now, the threats to our constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” they continued, before going on to assert that “We have your back.”

 

To which the king responds:

 

“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT,”

 

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country,” argued the president. “Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT”

 

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

 

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/an-example-must-be-set-trump-calls-for-democrats-who-urged-soldiers-to-disobey-illegal-orders-to-be-arrested-and-put-on-trial/

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Not correct. Deemed unlawful by courts, therefore military should not obey the commands deemed unlawful

But not deemed unlawful by THE court.

10 minutes ago, Heavy Metal said:

Bombing at least 16 fishing boats without proof of criminality, murdering the occupants with no due legal processing 

High speed fishing boats loaded with drugs. 

 

Why do you claim there is no proof? Is that what AlterNet told you?

  • Popular Post
7 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Sedition is punishable by death. Was what these idiots were saying sedition? Maybe but what it is is really stupid. Calling for military personel to disobey orders is the hight of stupidity.

Sedition is like calling your goobers to DC for the 6th of January 2021 in the hopes they would somehow stop the certification of the election, and then telling them to march to the Capitol and fight (37 times) "peacefully (1 time), and then sit on your fat arse for 187 minutes while your called-in mob attacked police officers, broker into the Capitol, shat on the floor and searched for the Vice President in order to hang him.

 

10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition

 

Reminding military personal that they took an oath to defend the US Constitution and that they must disobey unlawful orders from any commanding officer, including the Commander-in-Chief, is simply being responsible and patriotic. That seems to have upset the crybaby who would be king.

 

Glad to help clear up what is obvious to rational people, but apparently confusing for sheeple of the cult.

Those on AN defending Trump on this matter are:

 

"Scumbags" (Quoting Yagoda's fav. word)

1 minute ago, bubblegum said:

Those on AN defending Trump on this matter are:

 

"Scumbags" (Quoting Yagoda's fav. word)

you are

32 minutes ago, Tranquility said:

5. Things often discussed but not clearly “unlawful orders” (in a narrow legal sense)

A few related points that sometimes get mixed in, but don’t (yet) amount to formally recognized unlawful orders:

 

  • “Shoot them in the legs” remarks:

    • Reporting from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper recounts Trump (during his first term) asking whether protesters could be shot “in the legs.” That was rejected by officials and never issued as a formal order, and it predates his current tenure. (The Guardian)


Excellent post but......
Your own Guardian link confirms exactly what Esper said:
Trump told his military leadership to ‘shoot them in the legs’.

Calling it a ‘remark’ because it wasn’t typed up on Pentagon letterhead is just an appeal to technicality.
Most military orders — especially in battle — are verbal.
The only reason this one never became ‘formal’ is because the generals refused to carry out an unlawful instruction.

If a Commander-in-Chief tells the military to shoot civilians, that’s not a comment.
It’s an illegal order stopped in real time.

And just to be clear: ChatGPT output isn’t evidence — it picks the most probable wording, not the most accurate facts. Its first-pass answers can carry an error rate up to 30–50%.

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

High speed fishing boats loaded with drugs. 

 

Why do you claim there is no proof? Is that what AlterNet told you?

where is your proof they were "loaded with drugs"? recall one of the first had large number of men on board, like they were going fishing. If hauling drugs, you would want to carry drugs, not humans. 

Argument "what has he done lately?" just plain lame. Eichmann, top German war criminal, was executed in 1962, 17 years after war ended. 

I notice that US navy ships are said to be picking up survivors and possibly bits of their ships. If they navy is close enough to rescue these people, they should be close enough to interdict them and bring to justice. In the US, unlike here, there is no death penalty for drugs, full stop. But Trump has our armed forces killing noncombatants in international waters in boats incapable of reaching USA. Seems like a war crime to me and sailors should be able to refuse unlawful orders that result in deaths of civilians. But Trump has already pardoned military who have unlawfully killed civilians.... here is an AI summary of why this whole operation is suspect:

  • Violation of international law: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and independent UN experts have stated that the lethal strikes violate international human rights law by arbitrarily depriving individuals of their lives. The UN has called for the immediate cessation of these "unacceptable" attacks.
  • Absence of military necessity and proportionality: Critics argue that the use of lethal military force is not justified by military necessity when non-lethal interdiction methods were available. The strikes are also seen as disproportionate, as killing people and destroying boats to prevent possible drug shipments is excessive compared to any anticipated military advantage.
  • Extrajudicial executions: If viewed outside the framework of armed conflict, the strikes are considered by many to be extrajudicial killings under international human rights law.

 

1 minute ago, Emdog said:

where is your proof they were "loaded with drugs"? recall one of the first had large number of men on board, like they were going fishing. If hauling drugs, you would want to carry drugs, not humans. 

Argument "what has he done lately?" just plain lame. Eichmann, top German war criminal, was executed in 1962, 17 years after war ended. 

I notice that US navy ships are said to be picking up survivors and possibly bits of their ships. If they navy is close enough to rescue these people, they should be close enough to interdict them and bring to justice. In the US, unlike here, there is no death penalty for drugs, full stop. But Trump has our armed forces killing noncombatants in international waters in boats incapable of reaching USA. Seems like a war crime to me and sailors should be able to refuse unlawful orders that result in deaths of civilians. But Trump has already pardoned military who have unlawfully killed civilians.... here is an AI summary of why this whole operation is suspect:

  • Violation of international law: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and independent UN experts have stated that the lethal strikes violate international human rights law by arbitrarily depriving individuals of their lives. The UN has called for the immediate cessation of these "unacceptable" attacks.
  • Absence of military necessity and proportionality: Critics argue that the use of lethal military force is not justified by military necessity when non-lethal interdiction methods were available. The strikes are also seen as disproportionate, as killing people and destroying boats to prevent possible drug shipments is excessive compared to any anticipated military advantage.
  • Extrajudicial executions: If viewed outside the framework of armed conflict, the strikes are considered by many to be extrajudicial killings under international human rights law.

 

Where is your proof that supports your claim there is no proof? 

 

The UN is no friend of the US, much less the Trump Administration. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.