Do you think it is almost at the point were the US military will refuse an order from Trump?
I do. Cheers!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Northwest · M
@hunkalove Service members must obey lawful orders, they also have a duty to disobey "manifestly illegal" ones, which are clear violations of the Constitution or U.S. laws.
Sand Creek Massacre (1864): Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer refused Colonel John Chivington's order to attack Cheyenne and Arapaho civilians and later testified against Chivington.
My Lai Massacre (1968): Helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson Jr. intervened to stop the killing of civilians by U.S. soldiers, defying orders to continue the attack and reporting the war crime.
Duty to Disobey: U.S. military law requires service members to follow lawful orders but obligates them to disobey orders that are "palpably illegal" (clearly and obviously against the law).
UCMJ Articles: Article 90 (Disobeying a Superior Officer) and Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) provide the legal basis for prosecuting disobedience, but also offer defenses if the order was unlawful.
Nuremberg Defense: The principle that one was "just following orders" is not a valid defense for committing illegal acts, as confirmed after World War II.
Sand Creek Massacre (1864): Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer refused Colonel John Chivington's order to attack Cheyenne and Arapaho civilians and later testified against Chivington.
My Lai Massacre (1968): Helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson Jr. intervened to stop the killing of civilians by U.S. soldiers, defying orders to continue the attack and reporting the war crime.
Duty to Disobey: U.S. military law requires service members to follow lawful orders but obligates them to disobey orders that are "palpably illegal" (clearly and obviously against the law).
UCMJ Articles: Article 90 (Disobeying a Superior Officer) and Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) provide the legal basis for prosecuting disobedience, but also offer defenses if the order was unlawful.
Nuremberg Defense: The principle that one was "just following orders" is not a valid defense for committing illegal acts, as confirmed after World War II.
Prison1203 · 61-69, M
@Northwest tell me how taking illegal alirns our of our country by capturing them is an unlawful order? They are doing legal orders by taking illegal aliens from the streets and they are criminals once they cross the border without going through a port of entry or do not show up for their court dates
hunkalove · 70-79, M
@Prison1203 most of those people aren't illegal.
Northwest · M
@Prison1203
You switch topics, dummy. If you want to response to me, you need to address the issues I raised, so develop a brain.
tell me how taking illegal alirns our of our country by capturing them is an unlawful order? They are doing legal orders by taking illegal aliens from the streets and they are criminals once they cross the border without going through a port of entry or do not show up for their court dates
You switch topics, dummy. If you want to response to me, you need to address the issues I raised, so develop a brain.
Prison1203 · 61-69, M
@Northwest I did respond to you. You didn’t respond to me when I asked how removing illegal aliens from our country is an illegal order? You glossed over that and didn’t answer me . If someone crosses our border illegally or over stays their visa or doesn’t show up for their court dates if they go through a port of entry that also makes them illegally in our country . Tell me what unlawful orders have they had given to them by their superior leaders?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Prison1203 · 61-69, M
@Northwest I did address your question with one of my own . How is it against orders to remove illegal aliens. Trump is also using military personnel to remove aliens, how does that work for you @Northwest?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment