Enough Hyprocrisy

[Offthemat]

10 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

They did not cite or imply any specific orders, they were stating simply that military is bound, by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to not obey illegal orders.  If a service man/woman commits an illegal act, “following orders” is not a defense, they can still be charged and sentence for the crime.  This is important now that any President enjoys immunity if their action is deemed an official act, which a military order would be.  The service men and women do not enjoy this immunity.  If any president gives an order that is illegal to the constitution, to our domestic laws, or to international law, they have no consequence.  The personnel that would carry out that order would carry the consequence.  
 

There is a chain of command, but the oath of the military is to the Consitution, not to any President. And if military personnel are given illegal orders, rather it be from the President or their immediate ranking officer, they are in fact bound by law to disobey.  They carry the consequence if they do not. 

Since when?

[Caveira]

Can someone show what order Trump has given that someone thinks is illegal ?

 

anything else is just saying the sky is blue.

[ionel]

18 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Can someone show what order Trump has given that someone thinks is illegal ?

 

anything else is just saying the sky is blue.

He lies 110% of the time and gives illegal orders 110% of the time.  I'm sure I heard this from a good source.  

Edited November 21, 2025 by ionel

[Caveira]

7 minutes ago, ionel said:

He lies 110% of the time and gives illegal orders 110% of the time.  I'm sure I heard this from a good source.  

Seems familiar.  Not a ton of details though lol 

[WrestlingRasta]

28 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Can someone show what order Trump has given that someone thinks is illegal ?

 

anything else is just saying the sky is blue.

Just yesterday a judge (those people whom in our constitution job it is to interpret the application of law in disputes) just ruled that the national guard deployment to DC is illegal.  I’m sure there will be people here pretend to know more about the law than a federal judge, or if not claim the judge, like anyone who dares disagree, is a radical nutjob.   But in answering your question, this just one example. The most recent in fact. 

Edited November 21, 2025 by WrestlingRasta

[JimmySpeaks]

Pending an appeal in the next 21 days but ok sure. 

[WrestlingRasta]

45 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Since when?

You’ll have to be more specific.  Since when what?  Let me work backwards from the post you quoted…

Since when will military bare consequences for committing illegal acts?  Since when is the military’s oath to the constitution and not a president?   Since when is there a chain of command? Since when did the president receive immunity from official acts?  Since when did military members become bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice?   
 

I laid out a pretty detailed and factual explanation of the situation, so you’ll have to be a little more specific with “since when”.  

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You’ll have to be more specific.  Since when what?  Let me work backwards from the post you quoted…

Since when will military bare consequences for committing illegal acts?  Since when is the military’s oath to the constitution and not a president?   Since when is there a chain of command? Since when did the president receive immunity from official acts?  Since when did military members become bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice?   
 

I laid out a pretty detailed and factual explanation of the situation, so you’ll have to be a little more specific with “since when”.  

The national guard is still in DC and can be for at least 21 days.  It’s how our process works.  So nothing illegal has happened yet as you claim. 

Edited November 21, 2025 by JimmySpeaks

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Just yesterday a judge (those people whom in our constitution job it is to interpret the application of law in disputes) just ruled that the national guard deployment to DC is illegal.  I’m sure there will be people here pretend to know more about the law than a federal judge, or if not claim the judge, like anyone who dares disagree, is a radical nutjob.   But in answering your question, this just one example. The most recent in fact. 

How many of those have ruled that way and yet another higher court overrules.   Whom is the judge?   Biden appointee?

Edited November 21, 2025 by Caveira

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You’ll have to be more specific.  Since when what?  Let me work backwards from the post you quoted…

Since when will military bare consequences for committing illegal acts?  Since when is the military’s oath to the constitution and not a president?   Since when is there a chain of command? Since when did the president receive immunity from official acts?  Since when did military members become bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice?   
 

I laid out a pretty detailed and factual explanation of the situation, so you’ll have to be a little more specific with “since when”.  

Since when did military personnel become liable for following illegal orders?

[mspart]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

They did not cite or imply any specific orders, they were stating simply that military is bound, by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to not obey illegal orders.  If a service man/woman commits an illegal act, “following orders” is not a defense, they can still be charged and sentence for the crime.  This is important now that any President enjoys immunity if their action is deemed an official act, which a military order would be.  The service men and women do not enjoy this immunity.  If any president gives an order that is illegal to the constitution, to our domestic laws, or to international law, they have no consequence.  The personnel that would carry out that order would carry the consequence.  
 

There is a chain of command, but the oath of the military is to the Consitution, not to any President. And if military personnel are given illegal orders, rather it be from the President or their immediate ranking officer, they are in fact bound by law to disobey.  They carry the consequence if they do not. 

Everybody knows this Rasta.   So why did they feel the need to be redundant and make a bid deal of it?   That's the question and I think the answer is obvious. 

mspart

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

Everybody knows this Rasta.   So why did they feel the need to be redundant and make a bid deal of it?   That's the question and I think the answer is obvious. 

mspart

Tis why I asked what is he doing that’s illegal which is prolly nothing.     Trying to get their base to make some noise.   It’s called politics.  IMO at least 

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

How many of those have ruled that way and yet another higher court overrules.   Whom is the judge?

If you are charged with disobeying orders in the military, a court martial panel will determine whether the order was legal or not.  So you’ll want to be real sure of yourself before you make that decision. 

[WrestlingRasta]

10 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Since when did military personnel become liable for following illegal orders?

Mitchell vs Harmony, 1851

[WrestlingRasta]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Tis why I asked what is he doing that’s illegal which is prolly nothing.     Trying to get their base to make some noise.   It’s called politics.  IMO at least 

 

55 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Can someone show what order Trump has given that someone thinks is illegal ?

 

anything else is just saying the sky is blue.

 

19 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

The national guard is still in DC and can be for at least 21 days.  It’s how our process works.  So nothing illegal has happened yet as you claim. 

Actually the question I answered was: “What order has Trump given that someone thinks is illegal”

I did not claim it was illegal, a federal judge did.   The ability and willingness to comprehend what you are reading is a wonderful thing (particularly that which you wrote yourself) 

[El Luchador]

25 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Just yesterday a judge (those people whom in our constitution job it is to interpret the application of law in disputes) just ruled that the national guard deployment to DC is illegal.  I’m sure there will be people here pretend to know more about the law than a federal judge, or if not claim the judge, like anyone who dares disagree, is a radical nutjob.   But in answering your question, this just one example. The most recent in fact. 

We'll see what happens when a real court hears it . Leftist judges absolutely do not care about the law, only what they think the law should be. The left always feels they know what is best and the end justifies the means. Other courts have ruled in his favor. There is a historical basis for his actions.

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

If you are charged with disobeying orders in the military, a court martial panel will determine whether the order was legal or not.  So you’ll want to be real sure of yourself before you make that decision. 

That I agree with.  I’m asking @WrestlingRasta or whomever how many lower court rulings have gone against Trump by Biden or Obama or Clinton appointed judges only to be overturned by higher courts.   A lot / most / damn near all of them have 

Edited November 21, 2025 by Caveira

[WrestlingRasta]

15 minutes ago, mspart said:

Everybody knows this Rasta.   So why did they feel the need to be redundant and make a bid deal of it?   That's the question and I think the answer is obvious. 

mspart

Apparently the current President of the United States is not included in your “everybody” scenario, along with some people in this thread. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Apparently the current President of the United States is not included in your “everybody” scenario, along with some people in this thread. 

This is like the Epstein files everyone wants released.  No one disagrees the military should disregard illegal orders.    It’s political where as they’re insinuating he’s issuing boat loads of illegal orders which he is not.  It’s vague.  It’s silly.  And it’s intended to get to get the media and the left masses up in arms 

just another week or so news cycle of rabble rabble rabble.   Before the next one.  Constant.  Negative.   MSM rabble rabble rabble.  
 

it’s called politics guys.   What do they say.  Don’t let a lie get in the way of a good story.  

Edited November 21, 2025 by Caveira

[JimmySpeaks]

27 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

 

 

Actually the question I answered was: “What order has Trump given that someone thinks is illegal”

I did not claim it was illegal, a federal judge did.   The ability and willingness to comprehend what you are reading is a wonderful thing (particularly that which you wrote yourself) 

So is it illegal ? 

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

How many of those have ruled that way and yet another higher court overrules.   Whom is the judge?   Biden appointee?

They are liberal activist judges. They are interpreting the law through their own liberal bias minds. So, their rulings are just a little tainted.

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

They are liberal activist judges. They are interpreting the law through their own liberal bias minds. So, their rulings are just a little tainted.

This was a Biden appointed judge from 2021 fwiw 

[Paul158]

59 minutes ago, Caveira said:

This is like the Epstein files everyone wants released.  No one disagrees the military should disregard illegal orders.    It’s political where as they’re insinuating he’s issuing boat loads of illegal orders which he is not.  It’s vague.  It’s silly.  And it’s intended to get to get the media and the left masses up in arms 

just another week or so news cycle of rabble rabble rabble.   Before the next one.  Constant.  Negative.   MSM rabble rabble rabble.  
 

it’s called politics guys.   What do they say.  Don’t let a lie get in the way of a good story.  

Remember when Obama's Chief advisor Rahm Emanuel famously said, " You never want (or let) a serious crisis to go to waste".  Even if you caused the crisis (I added that). They held true to their words.

Edited November 22, 2025 by Paul158
missed a word

[mspart]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Apparently the current President of the United States is not included in your “everybody” scenario, along with some people in this thread. 

Yes, Trump took the bait.  But when I watched that video, I couldn't believe what I was seeing.   They are trying to get the military to disobey lawful orders regarding National Guard helping ICE, CBP, FBI etc to clean up cities and chase illegal aliens.   That is what this was about.   And that is a serious thing to be doing.   

mspart

[Lipdrag]

9 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

duty and obligation to disregard ILLEGAL orders

If the former military and CIA members who made this ad think any illegal orders have been issued and obeyed they should not be releasing commercials about it.  They should be filing articles of impeachment and they should be referring all service members who committed crimes by obeying illegal orders to courts martial. 

If they do not have specific illegal orders for which impeachment and criminal charges for those obeying them then this is just crap.They did  not do that so this is just a stupid political stunt.  The fact that they got a stupid answer in return is not surprising.  This is just reindeer games at the national politics level.  Dems ratcheted it up and Trump responded with another ratchet.

Imagine if the President ran an ad reminding military members of their oath to defend (via killing and destroying) all enemies foreign and domestic and insinuated that these particular congressperps are the enemies.  No statement of crime.  No probable cause.  Just kept saying "all enemies foreign and domestic" while rolling their pictures one by one on the screen.  He's "just reminding them of their oath".  What could be wrong with the Commander in Chief reminding those he is chiefly commanding of their oath?  

 

Edited November 22, 2025 by Lipdrag