Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Legal and Illegal Orders According to Articles 90 and 92 of the UCMJ

It appears to me the six US Senators advising soldiers that they do not have to obey illegal orders were only quoting the code that governs all soldiers and sailors conduct. (UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice)

https://www.ucmjlaw.com/disobey-a-superior-officer/\

Unlawful orders and defenses to Article 92 and Article 90

According to UCMJ Law Article 92 An order is unlawful if it violates the Constitution, U.S. laws, or military regulations and it directs a service member to commit a crime or unethical act.

Service members and their leaders must not disobey a superior officer if the orders they are given are lawful. Service members and their leaders might refuse to follow orders that are unlawful. One exception to Article 90 says a service member is not required to obey an order that violates the law. Every service member takes an oath that includes obeying lawful orders. Service members and leaders take this oath seriously.

Specific to UCMJ Article 92 the ambiguity of the issued order can contribute to the defense of someone accused of violating it. If the order or regulation was unclear or could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways, the accused might not be guilty of attempting to disobey a superior officer . The burden falls on the prosecution to prove that the order was clear, and the accused willfully violated it.

WHAT ARE UNLAWFUL ORDERS?
An unlawful order is a directive issued by someone in a position of authority that violates the law, a person’s rights, or ethical principles. Following such orders can have legal consequences for both the person giving the order and the one executing it. Here are some examples of unlawful orders:

A superior orders a soldier to engage in war crimes, such as:

Targeting civilians intentionally.
Torturing prisoners of war.
Looting or pillaging property.
A commanding officer orders personnel to suppress lawful protests in violation of First Amendment rights.
Violations of International Laws.
Some other examples may be an Abuse of Authority:

Misuse of resources: A public official orders employees to use government funds or equipment for personal gain.
Harassment or retaliation: A superior orders someone to engage in workplace bullying or to retaliate against a whistleblower.
Penalties for violating UCMJ Article 90 and UCMJ Article 92

Penalties for violating UCMJ Article 90 and UCMJ Article 92, or the willful disobedience of a lawful order, are up to 5 years of confinement, a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Swoop62 · M

Sure, they were as like it is necessary to do that. The Military and Intelligence people were schooled on this thoroughly. The intent of doing this was disruption between the Military and Intelligence and the President. Sure they may make it pass as legal but why they did this is obvious and dangerous. .

1-25 of 36

MoveAlong · 70-79, M

@Swoop62 The Senators were really speaking to the people rather than to the military. It is a reminder that the President is not a dictator and the military has no obligation to do his bidding if he orders them to do something illegal. This President has politicized every department of government, even the military by placing Hegseth and other loyalist to top positions in the Pentagon.

Swoop62 · M

@MoveAlong Saying you don't have to obey illegal orders and we have your back is not speaking to the people. That is to the Military. So; does he put people that are against him in positions? Is that what other Presidents did? I think not. I was a head football coach and I hired people on my staff to help me not be against me so hired accordingly.

MoveAlong · 70-79, M

@Swoop62 Of course it is speaking to the people. And I'm glad he's letting the people know Congress will support soldiers and sailors if they follow the UCMJ.

Swoop62 · M

@MoveAlong Totally disagree as they were speaking directly to the Military and I believe fully that the reason was for causing disarray and problems with the service and the President. I see no dispute that that is true. Sure, you can attempt to spin and maybe even get it okay legally but hard to deny what they were really after here. Now as for me, I will add nothing else as we would never agree so no point to continue in the exchange. So have the last word if you like. Best to you and hope all goes well for you.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

SomeMichGuy · M

@Swoop62 Reminding the military that they have a duty to NOT obey illegal orders is not interfering with a PotUS who gives LEGAL orders, so your replies show that you believe that THIS person who has been invested with the powers of the PotUS is giving illegal orders...

Why are you opposed to helping both the country and the military remember that the PotUS

• does NOT have absolute power,
• is NOT, finally, above the law,
• IS supposed to work WITHIN the law and actually DEFEND the Constitution, not break & destroy it

...?

Why do you find democracy and the Constitution offensive?

Swoop62 · M

@SomeMichGuy What you are saying is totally false on what I said and redundant. Of course I want them to follow only legal orders and they already are well trained and schooled on what that is about. These 6 that did this was purely for disruption between the military and the president. Not for the benefit of anybody except a political CIA type ploy to undermine the president to help the Democrats regain power is all this is. If you truly believe it was for the good then run with it but for me I am 100% sure why they did it. Respond how ever you like with calling names or whatever you choose. I have said what I know is true and I will not change your mind or you mine. So, enjoyed the exchange and have fun.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Swoop62 You have to believe that the PotUS is issuing illegal orders.

That's the only way this reminder disrupts anything.

You can say what you want, but that's what follows logically from your position.

Swoop62 · M

@SomeMichGuy I have to respond to that illogical statement. Where did I say I believe he issued illegal orders? You assume what you want because of your political position. Even your 6 instigators said they could not name one illegal order. The reminder disrupts by casting doubt possibly to soldiers about following orders and get themselves or others in trouble. That is the 6 people who did this wants. They want things to go bad so they regain power. They did not need to be reminded of their oath by these people.

MoveAlong · 70-79, M

@Swoop62 Maybe they did need it. Who are you to say? At any rate verbalizing publicly what is in the UCMJ is not seditious or in anyway illegal.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

SomeMichGuy · M

@MoveAlong Watch out--copying & pasting the Preamble to the Constitution will be called out by this guy, you promoter of facts and spouter of truths!

Swoop62 · M

@SomeMichGuy What weird thinking process you have. You hear what you want and not what I said. By them doing this they are opening a door for the thought of obey or not obey order. And I stand by what I said about them causing disruption as they want doubt and indecisive thinking to enter the arena. if you think they did this purely for their concern for protocol, they like you are Democrats and they want disruption. So, you think the Military needed civilians to tell them about their oath. yeah right. My true stripes are I support the police, and the military and not to meddle in their affairs as they did and you support. I shall sit back and wait for more name calling and accusations. That is life when you all get disagreed with.

MoveAlong · 70-79, M

@Swoop62 Actually they do need civilians to tell them what to do. The President is the Commander in Chief and is a civilian. Congress has oversight and has the power to fund, defund and declare war.

MoveAlong · 70-79, M

@Swoop62 What do you mean the Senators were "opening the door for the thought to obey or not obey an order"? That is exactly what Article 92 does.

Swoop62 · M

@MoveAlong Exactly, you said it, Article 92 does that and the Military is the best in the World so I know they are well schooled and trained in this matter. These 6 were out to cause chaos and hope it hurts Trump even if no illegal orders come. They want some defiance and controversy. You have to know they had more motives than a friendly reminder. All aimed at Trump. Did anyone do this before? I mean Obama had 563 drone attacks that killed 4 of our citizens and three were not intended. And yet none did a big hoopla on Article 92.Then take the time to look up how many citizens he had killed in drone attacks in other Countries. Between 384 and 807 citizens were killed and yet no big Article 92 message to remind the Military. Bottom line, it is all about hatred of Trump. You have to know that is the truth. It is done 24/7 365 days a year to undermine him.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Swoop62

You hear what you want and not what I said.

I quoted you directly. You have an odd thinking process when you can't even remember what you just advocated.

As @MoveAlong has pointed out, you are simply wrong to claim that their pointing out the truth will lead to any problem in the chain of command.

The ONLY way that ANY issues with the chain of command can occur is via issuing

• clearly illegal orders, or
• possibly illegal orders.

Military personnel who question the legality of orders which either

• clearly ARE illegal, or
• possibly MIGHT be illegal

are simply doing their own "due diligence" in not being complicit in the abuse of power.

THAT's what America stood for before DJTV the rule of law, which is ultimately dependent upon EACH of us.

This requirement is intended to stop illegal orders from leading the military into error.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Swoop62

24/7 365

Doesn't make sense, units-wise.

sensible units (both result in hr/yr units)
24 hr/day * 365 days/yr

24 hr/day * 7 days/wk * 52 wk/yr

crazy units:
24 hr/day * 7 days/wk * 365 days/yr

has an answer with units of
(hr * day)/(wk * yr)

And you must agree with DJT's orders, even when illegal, if you are so worked up about the truth.

Swoop62 · M

[@SomeMichGuy You do have a reading problem. It does not have to be illegal to cause disruption. This video by these people was to inject that possibility of illegal order and cause second guessing and descension in the ranks. And you can quote all the crap you want about the Article 92, So what? the Military has its own protocol and organization and does not need civilians telling them what those are. My thinking process is fine and I know what I said and you are one of those who tries to find anything you can twist that does not suit your agenda. Sooooo glad that I am no longer a Democrat as you all wish everything to go bad just to have power. Heck with our citizens and Military as long as you get Trump, nothing else matters. And this little project by those 6 was an attempt at Trump. MasterLee is right. Their implication is Trump gives illegal orders but they could not name any. You either can't or choose not to understand what I say so we are wasting each others time. Enjoy your life.

Swoop62 · M

@SomeMichGuy Wow, so you are an English Professor now. Call in some help if you are unable to get that meaning. lmao And you have really lost it as I said not for illegal orders. Get your secretary to read that back to you. So now you say I lied that I am really for illegal orders. This has really gotten funny big time. English lessons and accused of lying. been fun.

MoveAlong · 70-79, M

@Swoop62 I can't wait for trump and the MAGAs to pursue this through investigations and the courts during the coming year. I also can't wait for the midterms if they do. This will be viewed as the Right trying to silence free speech with the threat of prosecution and jail. Good luck with that.

Swoop62 · M

@MoveAlong iI don't really give a crap about that. I know what their intent was as does about everybody else. They probably escape legally but you may ought to beware of what you wish for.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Swoop62 You think that people saying the truth and reminding people of their legitimate, legal responsibilities is somehow nefarious.

The problem is that the Nazis got their military to do unthinkable things due to no one questioning the whole process.

DJT is trying to set himself up as a tyrant, and is succeeding in that. If you had as much knowledge of the Constitution as you think you know about the UCMJ, you might be looking at DJT's actions in light of that document and realize that his admin is violating the Constitution, not preserving it.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Swoop62

I know what their intent was as does about everybody else.

I don't think you do.

If military personnel, upon being reminded of their OBLIGATIONS under the UCMJ, decide to question or disregard an order which they believe is, or is likely to be, illegal, then they are doing that as part of the FAITHFUL fulfillment of their oath to ALL OF US.

They don't take an oath to the PotUS.

They probably escape legally but you may ought to beware of what you wish for.

So now you are threatening anyone who disagrees with you?

Swoop62 · M

@SomeMichGuy Democrats love to play the victim. Wait..... I will quit laughing in a minute. How did I make a threat. I have no say in what happens in this. You think it works if they go after Kelly and I say it may not go like you think. So to avoid being a hypocrite you have to say both are threats or neither are. I say neither but you know I could care less what you call it.

Hey, have your opinion on what you think they did that for . But you know, I get to have my opinion as well. Don't expect you to agree and I still remain thankful I am no longer a Democrat.

You just make stuff up, I never said they take an oath to the President. That article reminder crap is a big nothing. They know the rules and next we remind them how to load their guns and stand guard duty. Love the defense of what they did and you thinking the Military would be lost without their input. No plan to convince you of anything and love your covering and spinning what this really is. I am even more sure of what I believe after your messages so thank you.

1-25 of 36