Trump Calls Refusal to Execute Illegal Orders Treason

[John Stone]

39 minutes ago, Deluge said:

What's to question? The US has been invaded by illegal aliens and we have a drug and violence problem that originated from south of the border. We either neutralize it, or let it take over. Do you want to become another Venezuela or Mexico? 

..........

RE: We either neutralize it, or let it take over?

Which option is working - has worked - will  work?

Only a very naive individual would believe Venezuela is about curtailing drugs into the U.S. - destroying one fast-boat or 10 with missiles is asinine IF you truly(?) believe the tactic to be an effective deterrent. My god man, literally tons are flowing across the border - and def not in fast-boats. The profits are in the BILLIONS! Likely make more sense to legalize all dope - at least you could tax it. That said the black market would still be making tons (double entendre) 

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

That does not even fit.

..... on the contrary - lets try this, anyone remember Kent State? 

The Kent State shootings (also known as the Kent State massacre or May 4 massacre,  were the killing of four and wounding of nine unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State University campus in Kent, Ohio, United States. The shootings took place on May 4, 1970

How about this, the SecDef (War)  is  proposing using non-lethal force on protestors by shooting them in the legs.

Destroying fast-boats without Congressional approval. 

[User]

57 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And let’s be clear Trump is ordering the military to kill unarmed non-combatants on sight far from American shores even as they flee and with no opportunity to surrender, claims that it is perfectly legal are dubious at best, it  not like he’s so clearly within the bounds of the law that it’s outrageous to suggest otherwise. 

So, the cat is out of the bag. You do want the military to mutiny against Trump, based on your dubious political motivations.

 

 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

..... on the contrary - lets try this, anyone remember Kent State? 

The Kent State shootings (also known as the Kent State massacre or May 4 massacre,  were the killing of four and wounding of nine unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State University campus in Kent, Ohio, United States. The shootings took place on May 4, 1970

Wtf does that have to do with being partially pregnant? 

If you are trying to say the Kent State NG were convicted for following orders, you are absolutely wrong: ACLU

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

How about this, the SecDef (War)  is  proposing using non-lethal force on protestors by shooting them in the legs.

That is not a thing in this place called reality. 

1 hour ago, John Stone said:

Destroying fast-boats without Congressional approval. 

They have approval. Once designated a foreign terror organization, lethal force is approved by congress. Obama used it frequently. 

Edited November 25, 2025 by gatomontes99

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Actually the problem originates with the demand for the drugs, which is inside the united states, not south of  your border. 

BeaverFever thinks Americans use mind control to force drug dealers into cooking their shit up and bringing it to the US so Americans can kill themselves snorting their products. 

Beaverfever thinks criminals are the victims. 

Beaverfever blames Americans for everything. It's why he wants to help illegal aliens wipe this country off the map. 

Beaverfever is just as big of a scumbag as criminals are. 

Edited November 25, 2025 by Deluge

[Legato]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So now it’s treason punishable by death to even insinuate the president is breaking the law?  This must be another one of those magical laws that only applies when Republicans are in power. 
 

And let’s be clear Trump is ordering the military to kill unarmed non-combatants on sight far from American shores even as they flee and with no opportunity to surrender, claims that it is perfectly legal are dubious at best, it  not like he’s so clearly within the bounds of the law that it’s outrageous to suggest otherwise. 

"Unarmed" "non-combatants". Your "clear" is as opaque as an active clay pit in a monsoon.

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

This is bullshit.

So it this.

The fact is, Democrats did this in order to sow the idea that military personnel should begin to reject the orders of their superiors based on political ideology. The two Tweenkies quoted above, are trying to say there's nothing out of the ordinary here. Just a reminder of standard operating procedure...which is of course...bullshit.

They are too cowardly to tell the truth. Too slimy to admit what they really want to see. Despicable pansies. Traitorous little worms.

I know you subs don't like to question your doms, (huge turn off for you, ruins the experience) but the idea of Presidential Infallibility is too extreme for most self respecting people. 

[John Stone]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Wtf does that have to do with being partially pregnant? 

If you are trying to say the Kent State NG were convicted for following orders, you are absolutely wrong: ACLU

That is not a thing in this place called reality. 

They have approval. Once designated a foreign terror organization, lethal force is approved by congress. Obama used it frequently. 

RE: Obama used it frequently

I don't recall Obama calling any American a traitor - never mind a sitting SENATOR, who has seen the elephant?

What is going on now could destroy the ethos of the U.S. military. 

If u were part of an infantry platoon and were given a direct order to open fire on a group of kids - would you do it, Comrade? 

Edited November 25, 2025 by John Stone

[gatomontes99]

39 minutes ago, John Stone said:

I don't recall Obama calling any American a traitor - never mind a sitting SENATOR, who has seen the elephant?

 

Again, not relevant to whether or not a service members can ignore orders. It seems to me you are just picking things you don't like and vomiting them on the screen, hoping some will stick. 

However, Obama did not have any Republicans that tried to convince the military to not follow orders or put terrorist lives over the lives of Americans. So who would he have called traitors? Further, Trump did not say we should kill these democrats. He said the crime was so serious that the punishment could be death. 

39 minutes ago, John Stone said:

What is going on now could destroy the ethos of the U.S. military. 

More vomit. If you are going to make that claim, you have to make a convincing argument. Like this: "By calling on service members to ignore orders that they don't like, under the guise of potential illegality, the Democrats that called upon the service members to disobey orders could be creating a chaotic situation that will harm the national security of the United States and ruin the lives of said service members."

Do you see how that is done? If you are going to post some conclusion, you need to support it with, at minimum, speculation backed with reason that follows a logical train of thought. 

39 minutes ago, John Stone said:

If u were part of an infantry platoon and were given a direct order to open fire on a group of kids - would you do it, Comrade? 

This actually is a situation that came up quite often in Iraq and Afghanistan as the terror groups over there would send children, wearing bombs, after troops. Yes, they were ordered to fire on kids. Yes, they did it. Yes, I would. 

Edited November 25, 2025 by gatomontes99

[John Stone]

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Again, not relevant to whether or not a service members can ignore orders. It seems to me you are just picking things you don't like and vomiting them on the screen, hoping some will stick. 

However, Obama did not have any Republicans that tried to convince the military to not follow orders or put terrorist lives over the lives of Americans. So who would he have called traitors? Further, Trump did not say we should kill these democrats. He said the crime was so serious that the punishment could be death. 

More vomit. If you are going to make that claim, you have to make a convincing argument. Like this: "By calling on service members to ignore orders that they don't like, under the guise of potential illegality, the Democrats that called upon the service members to disobey orders could be creating a chaotic situation that will harm the national security of the United States and ruin the lives of said service members."

Do you see how that is done? If you are going to post some conclusion, you need to support it with, at minimum, speculation backed with reason that follows a logical train of thought. 

This actually is a situation that came up quite often in Iraq and Afghanistan as the terror groups over there would send children, wearing bombs, after troops. Yes, they were ordered to fire on kids. Yes, they did it. Yes, I would. 

RE: This actually is a situation that came up quite often in Iraq and Afghanistan as the terror groups over there would send children, wearing bombs, after troops. Yes, they were ordered to fire on kids. Yes, they did it. Yes, I would. 

I like how you put your response in context, but let me expand with a little more clarity for you.  

If you were part of an infantry platoon deployed on a campus within the continental united states and were ordered to open fire on a group of students peacefully protesting the actions of the U.S. Military in (ex) Vietnam, would you follow that order?  

The individuals comprising that platoon  would without question realize that the given order was unlawful - but your argument is that they should follow it regardless? 

The U.S. Constitution itself does not contain a standalone clause telling service members how to respond to unlawful military orders? Military obligations derive from the oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION? Individual military members do not swear an oath to an individual, C-n-C, this ain't Nazi Germany - there can be consequences on both sides? All this being said, I don't condemn the pilot that attacked those suspected drug trafficking swift boats - or likely a host of other examples that could be cited - but there has to be limitations. The Warrior Ethos is a foundational set of principles that GUIDE the CONDUCT and MINDSET of U.S. military personnel.  

 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I know you subs don't like to question your doms, (huge turn off for you, ruins the experience) but the idea of Presidential Infallibility is too extreme for most self respecting people. 

Presidential infallability? Boy you sure do live in an alternate reality. No wonder society is such a mess. You silly twits live in LaLaLand.  Never Never Land. With Pixies and Fairies and all the trappings.

Pookie...everyone is fallible. In the real world, we understand that. Hell we even put up with Mayorkis. Brandon. His kid. The lies.

You have to either face facts, or suffer being thought a goof.

Oh...one last thing...

Anyone with self respect, does not open the border and lie about it...does not let men play in women's sports...does not give kids Trannie lessons...does not drag the economies to their knees. Only really stupid people can accomplish that. And how?

By living in Never Never Land.

[Hodad]

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Presidential infallability? Boy you sure do live in an alternate reality. No wonder society is such a mess. You silly twits live in LaLaLand.  Never Never Land. With Pixies and Fairies and all the trappings.

Pookie...everyone is fallible. In the real world, we understand that. Hell we even put up with Mayorkis. Brandon. His kid. The lies.

You have to either face facts, or suffer being thought a goof.

Oh...one last thing...

Anyone with self respect, does not open the border and lie about it...does not let men play in women's sports...does not give kids Trannie lessons...does not drag the economies to their knees. Only really stupid people can accomplish that. And how?

By living in Never Never Land.

My god, you're dumb. It just hurts sometimes to read this shit. Glad, once again, that you're Canada's problem and not ours. 

Meanwhile, soldiers should not, for example, kill civilians just because someone told them to. "Just following orders" is poor refuge for illegal and immoral behavior. 

[gatomontes99]

25 minutes ago, John Stone said:

RE: This actually is a situation that came up quite often in Iraq and Afghanistan as the terror groups over there would send children, wearing bombs, after troops. Yes, they were ordered to fire on kids. Yes, they did it. Yes, I would. 

I like how you put your response in context, but let me expand with a little more clarity for you.  

If you were part of an infantry platoon deployed on a campus within the continental united states and were ordered to open fire on a group of students peacefully protesting the actions of the U.S. Military in (ex) Vietnam, would you follow that order?  

The individuals comprising that platoon  would without question realize that the given order was unlawful - but your argument is that they should follow it regardless? 

The U.S. Constitution itself does not contain a standalone clause telling service members how to respond to unlawful military orders? Military obligations derive from the oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION? Individual military members do not swear an oath to an individual, C-n-C, this ain't Nazi Germany - there can be consequences on both sides? All this being said, I don't condemn the pilot that attacked those suspected drug trafficking swift boats - or likely a host of other examples that could be cited - but there has to be limitations. The Warrior Ethos is a foundational set of principles that GUIDE the CONDUCT and MINDSET of U.S. military personnel.  

 

 

You should read up on Kent State if you think they were just shot for protesting. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

These unarmed protestors had pelted the NG, police and firemen with rocks. They set buildings on fire and they aggressively pursued the NG when they retreated. 

Given the multitude of warnings (verbal and physical) and their persistent-aggressive attacks, I would have shot. And, as the court found, I would have been justified. 

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

My god, you're dumb. It just hurts sometimes to read this shit. Glad, once again, that you're Canada's problem and not ours. 

Meanwhile, soldiers should not, for example, kill civilians just because someone told them to. "Just following orders" is poor refuge for illegal and immoral behavior. 

Good thing you never served your nation.

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

This is bullshit.

So it this.

The fact is, Democrats did this in order to sow the idea that military personnel should begin to reject the orders of their superiors based on political ideology. The two Tweenkies quoted above, are trying to say there's nothing out of the ordinary here. Just a reminder of standard operating procedure...which is of course...bullshit.

They are too cowardly to tell the truth. Too slimy to admit what they really want to see. Despicable pansies. Traitorous little worms.

The FACT IS, it is your FOREIGNER IGNORANCE which is BULLSHIT. "Democrats" didn't establish the principle. Duh

Quote

The principle that individuals must disobey illegal orders is well-established in U.S. military law and international precedent, such as the Nuremberg trials. U.S. service members have a duty to refuse orders that are "patently unlawful," meaning they violate the Constitution, U.S. laws, or international human rights standards. Following an illegal order can result in prosecution, as it is not a valid defense. 

 

Legal and ethical basis

• U.S. military law: The U.S. military's legal framework, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), requires service members to obey lawful orders but not unlawful ones. The Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly states that an order is unlawful if it is contrary to the Constitution or U.S. laws.
• Constitutional oath: A service member's oath is to the Constitution, not to an individual, which is a foundational reason they must refuse an order that violates it.
• International precedent: The Nuremberg trials established the principle that following orders is not a defense for committing illegal acts, a legacy that continues to inform military law today. 

 

What constitutes an "illegal" order

• An order is considered illegal if it is patently unlawful, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
• Examples of illegal orders include those that violate the Constitution, U.S. laws, or international law, such as the Geneva Conventions. 

 

Consequences of following or disobeying

• Following an illegal order: A service member who follows an illegal order can be prosecuted and held liable for their actions.
• Disobeying an illegal order: A service member can defend themselves in a court-martial if they can prove the order violated the law or their oath

 

8 hours ago, Legato said:

Correct, now the insinuation from the jumped-up-nevercomedowns is that illegal orders have already been given which are............???????????.

These simpletons are just muck raking in a vain attempt to have some sort of significance.

Too bad your ^OPINIONS have ZERO AUTHORITY wrt US LAW.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The FACT IS, it is your FOREIGNER IGNORANCE which is BULLSHIT. "Democrats" didn't establish the principle. Duh

 

Too bad your ^OPINIONS have ZERO AUTHORITY wrt US LAW.

Lol...Never Never Land...

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

By living in Never Never Land.

Believing Trump makes YOU doing ^THIS.

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...Never Never Land...

You're the expert from the inside ^here.

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Believing Trump makes YOU doing ^THIS.

You're the expert from the inside ^here.

I believe in my family. I agree with a lot of things Trump does. I also trust Trump more than the likes of you.

What I am...is much more attached to reality than you.

What you are...is a little spam bot.

[User]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Meanwhile, soldiers should not, for example, kill civilians just because someone told them to. "Just following orders" is poor refuge for illegal and immoral behavior. 

OK… what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? 
 

No one is ordering this right now. This isn’t what Democrats were implying or warning about. 

[robosmith]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I believe in my family. I agree with a lot of things Trump does. I also trust Trump more than the likes of you.

What I am...is much more attached to reality than you.

What you are...is a little spam bot.

You don't even understand that what the six Democrats stated is THE LAW.

Which is why you were WRONG about Comey, and you're wrong to believe that ANYTHING will happen legally to Mark Kelley.

You WERE wise enough to NOT take my bet on your contention that Comey would be convicted. LMAO

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You don't even understand that what the six Democrats stated is THE LAW.

Which is why you were WRONG about Comey, and you're wrong to believe that ANYTHING will happen legally to Mark Kelley.

You WERE wise enough to NOT take my bet on your contention that Comey would be convicted. LMAO

Wisdom? Cowardice? 

Eh, he's known himself for a long time. Long enough to know his track record. Long enough to know it's not a good bet. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You don't even understand that what the six Democrats stated is THE LAW.

Which is why you were WRONG about Comey, and you're wrong to believe that ANYTHING will happen legally to Mark Kelley.

You WERE wise enough to NOT take my bet on your contention that Comey would be convicted. LMAO

Lol...you never fail to amaze.

It'll be overturned...in Texas maybe.

[User]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You don't even understand that what the six Democrats stated is THE LAW.

Which is why you were WRONG about Comey, and you're wrong to believe that ANYTHING will happen legally to Mark Kelley.

You WERE wise enough to NOT take my bet on your contention that Comey would be convicted. LMAO

No, they recklessly implied Trump was issuing unlawful orders without explaining what was unlawful or what exactly they should be refusing.

 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...you never fail to amaze.

It'll be overturned...in Texas maybe.

Thanks for demonstrating once again that you KNOW NOTHING about US law. LMAO

If you did, you would know that Texas can't charge Comey with a crime supposedly committed in DC. 

Or maybe you're just desperately jumping through hoops after being caught with your pants down, AGAIN. LMAO

[User]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for demonstrating once again that you KNOW NOTHING about US law. LMAO

If you did, you would know that Texas can't charge Comey with a crime supposedly committed in DC. 

Or maybe you're just desperately jumping through hoops after being caught with your pants down, AGAIN. LMAO

US Law?

You are the one ignorantly crying about international law here. ROFL