Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 5:12 pmTrump has repeatedly claimed he could deploy “Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines” into US cities if necessary.
Has this actually happened?
During the George Floyd protests, he threatened to “deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem” if local authorities didn’t “defend the life and property” of residents.
Was it deployed?
In 2025, he has ordered and overseen deployments of a federalized U.S. National Guard and proposed deploying active-duty troops in cities he describes as “troubled.”
Is deploying the National Guard illegal?
I think this is a good example of an illegal order. I think most of us have heard him say these things on the news or seen reports of it.
What is the actual illegal order that's been given that you think an officer or enlisted soldier needs to disobey?
How would you like to see soldiers and officers start defying the chain of military command? Who should be in charge instead?
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 5:12 pmTrump has repeatedly claimed he could deploy “Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines” into US cities if necessary.
Has this actually happened?
He says it has. Do you think he was lying?
JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 5:28 pmHow would you like to see soldiers and officers start defying the chain of military command? Who should be in charge instead?
Let's start simple. Do you believe that the military should commit war crimes? Do you think the military should support a coup d'etat? Overturning the result of an election? Shoot non-violent civilians?
Or do you believe the military must do whatever the President says, no matter what?
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 5:28 pm
What is the actual illegal order that's been given that you think an officer or enlisted soldier needs to disobey?
Any illegal order, anything that is directly against the Constitution, any war crime. Period.
The video does not specify any one thing. I don't think we know what orders may be given in the future. But we do know that soldiers have the right and the duty to refuse illegal orders.
Historically, soldiers have often done whatever they were ordered to do. The Mai Lai Masssacre in Vietnam. Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse. Haditha Killings in Iraq. The Mahmudiyah Rape & Murder of a 14 year old girl, murdering her and her family and burning the bodies. The Afghanistan “Kill Team” in 2010. No Gun Ri in 1950.
History shows that American soldiers have sometimes carried out flagrant war crimes when pressured by commanders or political leaders. That's why it's important to remind them that they can and should refuse illegal orders.
Would you agree that the military should have refused orders in the incidents mentioned above?
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 5:28 pm
What is the actual illegal order that's been given that you think an officer or enlisted soldier needs to disobey?
Any illegal order, anything that is directly against the Constitution, any war crime. Period.
The video does not specify any one thing. I don't think we know what orders may be given in the future. But we do know that soldiers have the right and the duty to refuse illegal orders.
Historically, soldiers have often done whatever they were ordered to do. The Mai Lai Masssacre in Vietnam. Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse. Haditha Killings in Iraq. The Mahmudiyah Rape & Murder of a 14 year old girl, otherwise why did they choose now to do that? It was just to undermine Trumpmurdering her and her family and burning the bodies. The Afghanistan “Kill Team” in 2010. No Gun Ri in 1950.
History shows that American soldiers have sometimes carried out flagrant war crimes when pressured by commanders or political leaders. That's why it's important to remind them that they can and should refuse illegal orders.
Would you agree that the military should have refused orders in the incidents mentioned above?
Oh, come on boot This was a political stunt. My brother who was an officer said every person that serves in the military already knows they are not to follow illegal commands. These six were just trying to undermine Trump and they knew that. This was all for theatrics. They knew the video would become broadcast to everyone and it was just to make Trump look questionable and that’s the last thing we need. When they were interview, they didn’t have anything specific. Surely you can see what they’re doing.
JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 5:28 pm
What is the actual illegal order that's been given that you think an officer or enlisted soldier needs to disobey?
Any illegal order, anything that is directly against the Constitution, any war crime. Period.
The video does not specify any one thing. I don't think we know what orders may be given in the future. But we do know that soldiers have the right and the duty to refuse illegal orders.
Historically, soldiers have often done whatever they were ordered to do. The Mai Lai Masssacre in Vietnam. Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse. Haditha Killings in Iraq. The Mahmudiyah Rape & Murder of a 14 year old girl, otherwise why did they choose now to do that? It was just to undermine Trumpmurdering her and her family and burning the bodies. The Afghanistan “Kill Team” in 2010. No Gun Ri in 1950.
History shows that American soldiers have sometimes carried out flagrant war crimes when pressured by commanders or political leaders. That's why it's important to remind them that they can and should refuse illegal orders.
Would you agree that the military should have refused orders in the incidents mentioned above?
Oh, come on boot This was a political stunt. My brother who was an officer said every person that serves in the military already knows they are not to follow illegal commands.
And yet, history shows that they do follow illegal commands. Over and over. Including real atrocities.
Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 6:22 pmThese six were just trying to undermine Trump and they knew that. This was all for theatrics. They knew the video would become broadcast to everyone and it was just to make Trump look questionable and that’s the last thing we need. When they were interview, they didn’t have anything specific. Surely you can see what they’re doing.
Reminding service members of their duty to refuse unlawful orders is never dangerous. Forgetting that duty often is.
If the message was “unnecessary” because everyone already knows they must refuse illegal orders, then why do we have a long, tragic list of moments in U.S. military history where service members did obey illegal orders? Sometimes horrific ones? In a healthy democracy, people must be able to question, criticize, or express concern about any leader without it being treated as an attack on the country.
If our political climate is so fragile that simply raising the principle of refusing illegal orders is seen as a threat, then that says more about our civic health than about the people who issued the reminder.
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 6:22 pm
My brother who was an officer said every person that serves in the military already knows they are not to follow illegal commands.
Then how come they are following illegal commands?
Alex Horton and Ellen Nakashima wrote:Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.
The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
Hegseth’s order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers. Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 5:48 pmDo you think the military should support a coup d'etat? Overturning the result of an election?
No. I think the military should remain under civilian control.
I'm unclear on what you mean of "the military ... support a coup d'etat" in this context. The President is the Commander in Chief, and nobody disagrees that he got elected as the result of the election.
Or do you believe the military must do whatever the President says, no matter what?
I don't think the military should start disregarding the civilian, democratic chain of command. Do you?
Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 28, 2025 6:22 pm
My brother who was an officer said every person that serves in the military already knows they are not to follow illegal commands.
Then how come they are following illegal commands?
Alex Horton and Ellen Nakashima wrote:Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.
The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
Hegseth’s order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers. Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution.
All of the posts since my recent one, and there are quite a few, confirm my pov. I think most of you have a side, and then are searching for the arguments for your side and against the other.
Someone said this forum is supposed to be about history. Well, history is full of Presidents “breaking the law” and history the looks down on them sometimes and others salutes that “initiative”. Again, I am not taking sides in the pro/anti Trump stuff.
From Jackson ignoring SCOTUS and allowing the Cherokee to bee moved, to Lincoln suspending all sorts of rights he lack authority to suspend, to Roosevelt breaking all sorts of laws to help the Allies before our entry into the war, and countless more.
Personally, I felt very member of Congress should have been impeached when the US went into Iraq. Note, I am NOT saying a decision to go to war in Iraq would have been wrong (or right). But sending troops into what is OBVIOUSLY. A war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Vietnam but LACKING THE courage DO YOUR JOB and vote UP or DOWN on a declaration of war should have been grounds for impeachment.
