My disgust is ineffable: democrat lawmakers urge military to commit crimes

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Exactly. The video is stunningly stupid and maybe the point is to provoke this exact reaction.

And who did Trump say to hang? He didn't mention any names but six people sure reacted like they touched a hot stove. All the hallmarks of a CIA op.

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

And who decides what is unlawful and lawful....certainly not you. The chain of command will do that and that includes Trump. Two of those clowns said that you MUST not obey illegal orders without saying what they look like. They tried to ask Crow what orders issued by Trump but he couldn't answer.

Complete bullshit. Trump and the chain of command DO NOT decide what is unlawful. We have a system to do that...it's called the judicial system. And the constitution. If you left it to the decaying one he'd burn that document. Just another rage bait thread...mod should just shut it down. False from the title on.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Hdtown

Do you remember Diaper Don's order on January 6th, these folks did nothing wrong and real people know it.

No. what order did Trump give?

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I don’t believe that they are asking anyone to defy lawful orders. In fact they are asking for the military to defy unlawful or illegal orders.

There is a difference.

I think the video is political and unwarranted but it is certainly not illegal, treasonous, or seditious.

I think the OP should save his outrage for something more serious than this.

it's completely a staged political stunt.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Exactly. The video is stunningly stupid and maybe the point is to provoke this exact reaction.

ask what is the point here? it's clear yet again the Dems are trying to undermine Trump's presidency. it's notable these politicians can't name one illegal order. because there haven't been any. at best it's the Demonrats ginning up political diatribes for news cycles at worst they are trying to use Trump's use of the Military including the National Guard as yet another flimsy impeachment excuse.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Complete bullshit. Trump and the chain of command DO NOT decide what is unlawful. We have a system to do that...it's called the judicial system. And the constitution. If you left it to the decaying one he'd burn that document. Just another rage bait thread...mod should just shut it down. False from the title on.

This only applies to the military. This is no judicial process save that in the military.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

What order TO THE MILITARY did Trump issue. Remember, this a military issue and only a military issue.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Complete bullshit. Trump and the chain of command DO NOT decide what is unlawful. We have a system to do that...it's called the judicial system. And the constitution...blah blah blah

THere's obviously a LOT you don't understand here... that's not uncommon if you haven't served and went to public schools.

An order is presumed legal unless it is manifestly (yes thats the term) illegal. Such as, an officer told a squad to gang rape a civilian or to shoot surrendering troops.

If the CPT tells you to detain illegals.... well guess what, you're gonna detain illegals. There's NOTHING unlawful about that order.

If the leftists think they are reminding anyone of anything they don't already understand... well they aren't. And of course they don't think that.

This thread is another great example of an axiom I saw not too long ago and have adopted so that I don't feel obligated to educate the ignorant anymore.

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by texassapper

THere's obviously a LOT you don't understand here... that's not uncommon if you haven't served and went to public schools.

An order is presumed legal unless it is manifestly (yes thats the term) illegal. Such as, an officer told a squad to gang rape a civilian or to shoot surrendering troops.

If the CPT tells you to detain illegals.... well guess what, you're gonna detain illegals. There's NOTHING unlawful about that order.

If the leftists think they are reminding anyone of anything they don't already understand... well they aren't. And of course they don't think that.

This thread is another great example of an axiom I saw not too long ago and have adopted so that I don't feel obligated to educate the ignorant anymore.

Here's the rub, the CIC has ordered (and they were followed, opening those up to prosecution) detaining and DEPORTING people to countries they had no affiliation with INDIVIDUALS with DUE PROCESS.


Denying due process is considered illegal as it violates the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect all persons from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures. This applies to both citizens and non-citizens within the United States.


Did you forget the bolded word above sapper? Do you think abducting and deporting illegals without due process is ok? Catching them as they show up for court proceedings because they've been following the process...it's not their fault it's slow.


What about having the military fire on civilians in international water? That's fine? What if in your example it's not a civilian being gang raped but a captured enemy? All good with giving that order are you?


'

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

...I think the OP should save his outrage for something more serious than this.

I cannot imagine much of anything more serious than Congress critters - protected by the speech and debate clause, no less - and former military at that, to have such contempt for their own constituents. In ye olde days, that alone would warrant at least a splintered log, bucket of tar and bag-o-feathers and a short trip outta town.

Oh sure, in all practicality, they are hoping to reach the few that are dopey enough of the Left-wing nuts to question orders. That is how people die and the chain of command get's disrupted and they darn well know it. They simply have no regard for the harms they espouse to their own useful ID-10-Ts.

These seditionists are not "official" legal scholars, retained by the military to advise service members. For that matter, the soldiers are not legal scholars either. That is not their training or their mission.

When the commanding office issues an order; the only correct answers is:
Yes sir! Followed by a brisk salute while making eye contact.

It is not to hesitate or debate the lawfulness or to ask to see the polling data of every little order.

That's the truth of the matter. However, seems that:

[Yssup Rider]

Pathetic. You boyz is triggered.

Hypothetically speaking, had Trump actually ordered to troops to the Capitol to prevent the certification of the election, would you consider those who refused that order to be traitors, because this thread indicates you most surely would.

So much wringing of the hands over a video that obviously I pre-emote Trump’s next military incursion into a Democrat led state. And don’t deny that day is coming. Between the Olympics and World Cup, he’s gonna party like it’s 1936,

Yet somehow, the democrats are seditionists and the man who actually attempted a violent coup isn’t.

Who can’t handle the truth?

Shit. Who among you MAGAdoodles can recognize it?

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Pathetic. You boyz is triggered.

Hypothetically speaking, had Trump actually ordered to troops to the Capitol to prevent the certification of the election, would you consider those who refused that order to be traitors, because this thread indicates you most surely would.

So much wringing of the hands over a video that obviously I pre-emote Trump’s next military incursion into a Democrat led state. And don’t deny that day is coming. Between the Olympics and World Cup, he’s gonna party like it’s 1936,

Yet somehow, the democrats are seditionists and the man who actually attempted a violent coup isn’t.

Who can’t handle the truth?

Shit. Who among you MAGAdoodles can recognize it?

Trump did not have the authority to send in the troops on January 6 without jumping through hoops. What he did was to offer troops to the mayor, the police chief, and Nancy Pelosi. The police chief confirmed that. Nancy is on video admitting that it was her fault for not taking the troops.

Now military orders are a funny thing to civilians. I remember when Clinton took an aircraft carrier uber to the commemoration of D Day in 1994. Skippy Step on all of us asked a pilot, an officer, what he would do if he got orders to fly around the world. The officer said he would pack his bag and get on the plane. Skippy was incredulous. You wouldn't want to know why? No sir. I follow my orders. Skippy (who didn't work for ABC yet) just didn't get it.

The first day of training they explained lawful versus unlawful orders. This was only five years after My Lai so they took it serious. Who can give orders? What is a lawful order? What if you get conflicting orders? What if you get orders from someone else while carrying other orders? We were reminded often.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

...had Trump actually ordered to troops to the Capitol to prevent the certification of the election...

He ordained it, i.e. authorized it, but Piglousey refused to accept it.
Maybe they have dictionaries, on sale, so you can keep your O words straight.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

...Who can’t handle the truth?...

Pretty sure they would also have wall mirrors on sale as well that would help you.

[Mort Watt]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

So nothing but your usual pathetic "you lie" screed with absolutely NOTHING backing it up. There was no lie told by the OP. Scum DEMS encouraging the military to ignore LAWFUL orders by claiming they're illegal. That appears to be beyond you. Now post some more insults....

Thanks for the drive-by!

I learn more from you every time you post!

I never woulda thought that someone could scream "NUH UH!!!" in that many words. Never!

And don't worry...some might call your continual responses to everything I post stalking. Or...at minimum...obsessive. Petulant and crude. illegitimate and childish in their reflexive, blunt rage.

Not me! I would never say those things. And I appreciate the Repost and you bringing me back into these threads as often as you do. These...are not...the insults...you are looking for.

[Mort Watt]

To paraphrase the OP, I am still looking for answers to this:

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

QUESTION for all of MAGA here, so certain in your condemnation of these people:

Do you support Trump stating in his posts that these people deserve execution?

Let me put those posts here, for reference:

"This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT"

And then:

"SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"

.

Do you support the President saying these things? Do you support these ideas yourself?

C'mon MAGA. Stop pussyfooting around with moronic, obtuse thread titles...weird, trite idioms about splintered logs...endless reposts of the tiresome "Jack" meme...and bullshit rationalizations about "Nancy didn't want the troops so it's her fault!"

TELL US your REAL thoughts about this. Man up, Patriots.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

How many times must it be said before you understand?
What these six ass clowns did was NOT in the well of the House. There they can lie their asses off without charge. Since I'm not a lawyer or a judge I can't render a real legal opinion but I can express my opinion. Which is as follows (pay attention), these ass clowns broke the law and undermined presidential authority not just now but in the future. Since four of the six are veterans, they should know better. They have the same knowledge of the UCMJ as I do. They are civilians and are not subject to military law but the people they are talking to are subject to military law;
Article 82: solicitation, persuading someone to disobey orders.
Article 88: contempt towards officials
Article 92: refusal to obey a lawful order
Article 94: mutiny or sedition
Article 134: the general article used as a catch all

These are the charges military people will be subject to if they listen to these ass clowns.

In my opinion, their guilt is for all to see. Whether or not someone charges them or what they will be charged with is for others to decide. The penalty is for the law to decide. They are still guilty of undermining the command authority of the president. Eugene Debbs was sentenced to 20 years for the same offense.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Here's the rub, the CIC has ordered (and they were followed, opening those up to prosecution) detaining and DEPORTING people to countries they had no affiliation with INDIVIDUALS with DUE PROCESS.


Denying due process is considered illegal as it violates the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, specifically the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect all persons from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures. This applies to both citizens and non-citizens within the United States.


Did you forget the bolded word above sapper? Do you think abducting and deporting illegals without due process is ok? Catching them as they show up for court proceedings because they've been following the process...it's not their fault it's slow.


What about having the military fire on civilians in international water? That's fine? What if in your example it's not a civilian being gang raped but a captured enemy? All good with giving that order are you?


'

I know this may seem difficult for you to understand but arguments over due-process do not rise to the level of "Manifestly" obvious. I mean thats why we argue over those things in courts of law.

Any Officer, NCO, or Soldier disobeying an order to detain an illegal is gonna find their ass living at inspection status for the next 20 years in Leavenworth. And the very fact that you think this IS something a soldier is oath bound to disobey means you don't understand what you don't understand. I'm just gonna assume it's on purpose.