Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/28/2025 9:03:59 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
In recent days, a group of six members of Congress created controversy by telling active-duty military personnel that they “do not have to obey illegal orders.” Their statement, while rooted in a true principle of military law, has caused confusion and concern among legal experts, Pentagon officials, and veterans. Understanding why requires looking at two separate systems: the constitutional protections granted to members of Congress, and the strict doctrine governing obedience to orders within the military.
The U.S. Constitution grants members of Congress several key protections to ensure the independence of the legislative branch.
Article I, Section 6—the Speech or Debate Clause—provides that Senators and Representatives:
These clauses were intended to prevent the Executive from intimidating, detaining, or prosecuting legislators for their political speech or for traveling to and from sessions of Congress.
While this protection does not cover every public statement a member might make, and does not shield criminal behavior, it does give them broad latitude to speak on public matters without fear of prosecution for mere political disagreement.
Thus, what the six legislators said was almost certainly legal—but legality and responsibility are two different issues.
Every recruit in the United States military receives explicit instruction on the difference between lawful and unlawful orders.
This is foundational. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), every order from a superior officer is assumed to be legal. Without this presumption, discipline collapses. Troops cannot carry out missions if they must first debate whether an order “feels right.”
This principle is equally important but applies only in narrow circumstances.
An unlawful order is not:
An unlawful order is one that would clearly be a crime even if a civilian did it—such as:
These examples are drilled into recruits during basic training and reinforced repeatedly through Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) instruction.
Disobeying a lawful order is a serious offense. Punishments can include:
Troops are warned: Unless an order is clearly illegal, it must be obeyed.
The legislators told service members they do not have to obey illegal orders. This statement is, in isolation, true.
But the message was dangerously incomplete because it:
This half-truth, delivered without context, can lead some service members—especially young or inexperienced ones—to interpret “illegal order” as “any order I personally think is wrong.”
Militaries do not function when troops are encouraged, however subtly, to evaluate orders through a political or emotional filter.
Even if unintentional, the message risks creating hesitation and confusion within the ranks. Only a small number of troops need to begin questioning orders on subjective grounds before discipline erodes. History shows that military cohesion can be damaged not by mass rebellion, but by small pockets of uncertainty that spread.
The military requires:
By giving the public only half of the doctrine, the members of Congress told the truth, but not the whole truth. In doing so, they unintentionally encouraged soldiers and civilians alike to interpret “illegal” through political or personal lenses. That is a recipe for confusion—and confusion in a military chain of command can get people killed.
Members of Congress enjoy constitutional protections that allow them to speak freely on public matters. Their statement about illegal orders was not unlawful. However, by presenting only a fragment of military doctrine—and omitting the far more important context about lawful orders and military discipline—they spread incomplete information that can damage cohesion and combat readiness.
In a military system built on clarity, reliability, and obedience, a half-truth can be more dangerous than a lie.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Yes you can refuse illegal orders. But you better damn well have all your ducks in a row. Of course it’s easy for Congesscritters to encourage other people to do so. They don’t have to meet a mutiny charge.
18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces
(a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
(b)For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2387
The protection is greatest when speaking in the well of the House or on the floor of the Senate. It can extend to hearings held away from the Capitol, but there are limits. I think recording video for viral dissemination that is not a part of a Congressional function, especially when specifically citing the non-Congress credentials of the speakers as claims to authority, puts this in question. I do not think the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution applies. Others may differ.
Bimp
As I posted about yesterday, this video may do something else. It may trigger the fevered minds of Anifa and other progressive brownshirts to believe all military personnel are carrying out illegal orders of Trump. In their minds, this would make our military valid targets for violence.
We should give “the six” half credit for telling the “half truth,” then completely excoriate and berate for their inference that illegal orders have or will be given by DJT.
They constantly hide behind their Constitutionally protected rights when they spew their garbage about using the National Guard “illegally” or attacking “innocent recreational boaters without due process.”
Yeah, we know they intended with their comments. They might be a little too clever by half . . .
What they did/said was not illegal as there was no specific order they could point out that was illegal.
And, what they said was “basically” true: Troops are not obligated to follow illegal orders. This is something they are trained on.
That said, what they said was stupid and could be interpreted incorrectly by some stupid private. THAT would get the private in trouble.
It’s just another troll, and Trump bought into it. Again.
His response should have been, “I don’t give illegal orders. And if I did, the troops have an obligation to not follow them. Not sure what the drama is all about.”
This is not sedition. Or treason. It’s just stupid trolling.
No, this is all misdirection. These same clowns/traitors earlier said that the use of such troops is unconstitutional. So, the follow-up recommendation of sedition is asking for one of their minions to kill them.
Just like he did.
But they can't be prosecuted for it.
Your post #9 is 100% correct. It was a dishonest, irresponsible thing for them to have done, but you’re right about Trump’s response. For all some of his supporters love it when he “trolls” others, he’s very susceptible to it as well.
I agree that the speech and debate exception may not technically apply. But I also don’t think their statements were technically illegal, so it doesn’t matter because they’ll be protected free speech anyway.
No; it’s sedition.
The class was about "illegal orders". For an hour or more he spoke at length about soldiers not being required to follow illegal...or unlawful (can't recall which word he used)...orders.
However,the strange and confusing thing about his talk was that he never gave us a single example of an illegal order. In fact he never came within 100 miles of giving us an example of one.
you cut=you could cut
However,the strange and confusing thing about his talk was that he never gave us a single example of an illegal order. In fact he never came within 100 miles of giving us an example of one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.