Posted on 11/20/2025 12:24:13 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
More mush from the wimps. Donald Trump is very bad, because mumble mumble mumble.
Even by the pathetic standards of congressional Democrats, this is unusually idiotic.
Note what they don’t say. They say that the American military is being “pitted against” their own countrymen, and they say to service members that “you can refuse illegal orders…”
…but they don’t say, even once, even in a pretty clear hint, precisely what illegal orders Trump has issued. He’s being vaguely bad, so you don’t have to obey him. The serious version would look like this: On [date here], the president of the United States ordered [unit name] to enter [place name] for the purpose of [specific action], and that order violated [explicit citation of U.S. Code]. They mushmouth around a set of feelings-signals about Mean Orange Something, but they never quite manage to spit it out. What’s the illegal order anyone is supposed to disobey, and what makes it illegal? News reports suggest they mean to refer to the boat strikes, but click on that link if you want to see more vagueness and weak hinting.
This is exactly what the Catholic bishops just did in their own stupid virtue performance, the precise mark of an absence of seriousness in a coven of drama queens, as they declared that they’re very concerned about questions that have arisen regarding certain situations involving immigrants. More mush from the wimps. Donald Trump is very bad, because mumble mumble mumble. Be precise and clear, or be silent.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
|
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. |
Hypotheticals in a vacuum, without a context, are nonsensical and nothing short of a trap. I can imagine a circumstance where I would refuse a legal order and a circumstance in which I would obey an illegal one. Anyone with military experience realizes the gravity of such a scenario and h
It’s a silly question that only a fool would ask and expect a response in a vacuum. Only a bigger fool would provide a response.
It is an attempt to intimidate service members--
by threatening them with future prosecution after Trump leaves office with any new creative, manufactured illegal actions that democrats might later claim and define. (just like they did with Trump).
This is terrible!
“Vaguely”? Who in the hell wrote that?? do they know what that word means?
Agree.
Lawyers obviously helped them tailor what they said so they couldn't be prosecuted for treason.
Give them the same amount of credence as the 50 former intel pinheads that said the laptop was Russian disinformation.
Urging running to canada during Vietnam, sponsoring liars like kerry at congressional testimony and provoking troop to defy deployment for the Persian Gulf war.
loathsome slimeballs.
This s*** was started in the late 60’s when I was a teen-then it came up again in the 1st Gulf War-fast forward some 30 years and here it is again-still wrong on many levels...
Typical.
“Further our agenda and do our dirty work.”
No consequences for them - or so they think.
the military that have blown up those drug running boats off Venezuela can be prosecuted by a democrat administration (if they win in 2028) for following an illegal order—shooting civilians (never mind that they criminal drug dealers).
The democrats would only have to find one of the hundreds of left-wing judges (not hard to find at all) to define that as an illegal order.
This is scary.
Based on what they tried to do to Trump, democrats will be able to define anything, and everything they do not agree with, as an illegal order.
Arrest the Congresscritters for sedition and maybe put a stop to this nonsense.
Arrest the Congresscritters for sedition and maybe put a stop to this nonsense.
Whoops. I meant to add: and prosecute.
In the military, the times when obedience or disobedience of a lawful order would really matter is if you are in a critical operational situation, like flying or launching or landing an aircraft, or diving a submarine or maneuvering in congested or proximate to shoal waters, or in combat. Under those circumstances disobedience of an order that threatens the operation, the safety of equipment and endangers personnel won’t just get you written up for mast or court martial later. You will be strongly manhandled out of the way and replaced and with whatever force is necessary to preserve safety and mission performance.
And furthermore, all direct orders from a superior commissioned or noncom are presumed lawful and you bear a very difficult burden of proof otherwise. In 27 years of active and reserve service I never witnessed or was in any way proximate to an unlawful order.
Doesn't work that way. Any order from someone with the authority to direct you is presumptively a lawful order.And anyone with any responsibility for safety, security or good order and discipline pretty much has the authority to direct you if need be. Moreover rank doesn't always matter either because the guy running the rifle range is enforcing the orders signed by the base commander and so a junior enlisted has authority on the range over very senior officers. The enlisted guy may not chew you out if you break a rule, but the base CO will, and he does have absolute authority to ensure firearms safety on his range. This stuff isn't actually hard.
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.