328
'Rebellion!' Stephen Miller flips out after Dems tell troops to 'refuse illegal orders'
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
328 points (98.5% liked)
politics
26404 readers
2320 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its literally your job to refuse an illegal order as a US service member.
That's what my dad always told me when I was growing up as a brat; refusing to obey an illegal order isn't a choice, it's a requirement. You must not follow illegal orders, if you do you are committing a crime.
Also a brat who spent around 16 years growing up on various military bases...... The problem with this idea is the expectation that enlisted men are knowledgeable enough to recognize an illegal order, while simultaneously being stupid enough to put their necks on the line to refuse a direct order from an officer.
In the military as an enlisted man, you are guilty until proven innocent. It would be easier to get off knowingly participating in a war crime than to knowingly refuse an illegal order.
The idea that American servicemen are trained to recognize and refuse illegal order is a fallacy. My dad did 26 years as an enlisted man and eventually made chief, he will openly admit to having zero faith in the US military ability to do the right thing.
Oh yeah, dad did say that he wasn't taught anything like that until he went to OTS.
thank god we take the oath the constitution and not goblin himmler
It does, however, require you to swear or affirm that you will follow the orders of the President, and the UCMJ puts the onus on the accusing service member to prove that an order is unlawful. It's a lot to ask of service members that likely only joined because they needed college money.
I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."
Edit: Ya'll are right, I didn't realize the officer oath excluded the "following orders" bit.
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
LAWFUL ORDERS.
Look, you don't need a JAG officer on standby to know you're not supposed to open up on a crowd of fuckin kids. This really isn't the ambiguous terrain you're making it out to be.
Would it be better to have an executive branch that wasn't a fucking traitorous pile of garbage? OF COURSE.
And we don't have to say "so help me god" unless we want to. Affirming your oath is fine.
This administration is built on the concept of gradually but continually pushing the boundaries of what's legal. First it's using federal troops to guard CBP as they violate constitutional rights, then it's murdering unnamed persons in boats in the Caribbean. Next will be something just a little bit more illegal, and eventually there may come a day where there's something as clear cut as opening up on a crowd of kids. But by then, how are a few troops supposed to prove that this is illegal while not speaking up about whatever they did last? Not to mention the longer this goes on the more they organize the command structure by loyalty over competence.
I don't think we can rely on waiting for a clear cut example like yours, people in power need to be pushing back now or it will be too late
is it the caribbean? I think of it as the golf of stupidity....
The creep you're describing - I think the us military institutions can survive an admin of that without total failure, but that's the miltiary. ICE is rapidly becoming a paramilitary strong point with funding rivaling actual services, staffed with proudboys and 3% types (and apparently, as recently caught, pedophiles) that I worry about more than the Enlisted and NCOs of the services.
I think. I can certainly be wrong. And none of this should be happening in the first place, this isn't something we should have to consider at all, but thanks to spineless fuckwit republicans covering him, his treason, his insurrection, his lies and crimes, here we are.
They have to infiltrate as many orgs as they can to get around the separation of powers system. But yeah ICE seems particularly bad.
Plus if the order that has made its way down to enlisted in such a way that the enlisted has to determine if it's illegal or not, then theres a bigger problem.
If officers can give the order to hold any return fire, then they can also give the order to do something that is not illegal.
Chain of command is a powerful structure
valid. that kind of deception to the rank and file is what we're seeing with the unlawful attacks right now.
The problem is that the UCMJ puts the onus on the "accuser" to prove that the order was unlawful. It's an awful lot to ask of a public servant. The whole situation sucks.
as I said, would it be better to have an executive branch that wasn't a traitorous pile of garbage? Yes.
100%
What was ambiguous to you? Also I said that. You must swear or affirm. I personally chose to affirm when I took my oath of enlistment.
Unfortunately Fox has been screaming that the kids/Dems are traitors for 20 years now. And that Patriots something something. I don't think a little ceremony is going to undo decades of brainwashing to hate libs.
you do realize there's a difference between your grandparents and the US military command structure, right?
yeah, there are some conservative types, and religious conservative types in the service, but they're far outnumbered by the people just doing the job. and people who serve have a much better idea of how hypocritical that rhetoric is coming from a bucket of traitor monkeys like faux news.
and I know conservatives who recognize it's nothing more than a propaganda mill for the GOP. cynically, they don't stop supporting it, but everyone knows.
I love messages that start with snark.
You do realize that people are individuals, right?
Yeah there are some intellectuals, and some that understand their oaths, but they're far outnumbered by the people that joined the military because they had no options. And people that watch Fox 24/7 generationally who know a libtard when they see them and hate them so much and know better than their nerdy superior.
Last actual point: Don't confuse officer command with the masses of soldiers that have watched Fox 24/7. The officers may know and may not follow, but many soldiers (not all, because why do I think I have to put in all the caveats) are lets just say entirely different. Like if you think it's only grandparents being swayed by Fox then I have no words. Ok I'm out.
Agreed, but the order is not always so clearly unlawful. You pretty much do need a lawyer on standby to challenge violations of Posse Comitatus. It is the servicemember's duty to refuse to conduct domestic law enforcement activities like deportation, for example, but they can be required to support those same activities in other ways.
That's the enlisted oath, the officer's oath has no such obligation.
Ahh, I was enlisted so I didn't know that the officer's oath excludes the "following orders" bit.
Its not the best production value, but I helped put this together last year:
https://youtu.be/HsrwIJcxYWY?t=529
Thank you for sharing! Added it to my watch list.
Officers do NOT follow unlawful orders.
Period ... see the period? That ended the sentence.
Rebellion!