Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Miller fails to recognize the Nuremberg Trials, Following illegal orders is inexcusable in a courtroom.
If you're saying "refuse illegal orders" is a rebellion that's uh...preeeetty telling on what sort of orders you're planning on giving.
"It is insurrection, plainly, directly, without question," Miller later told Fox News. "It's a general call for rebellion from the CIA and the armed services of the United States by Democrat lawmakers, saying that you have not only the right, but the duty and the obligation to defy orders of the commander-in-chief that those who carry weapons in America's name should defy their chain of command and engage in open acts of insurrection."
It's a short article that's mostly his quotes, worth the read.
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)
It does, however, require you to swear or affirm that you will follow the orders of the President,
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
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
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.
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.
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:
If it walks like a Stephen Miller and quacks like a Stephen Miller, it is probably a nazi.
I don't know whether Stephen Miller quacks, but I am pretty sure that he goose steps.
He, also suffers from the same genital defects as Hitler. Fun fact.
An admission that orders issued soon will be illegal
Already are
Still are, used to too.
Also true
Oh Stephen miller is in the news?
Perfect! Over a year old but by God there's no better Stephen miller interview.
Only watch if you want to see Stephen miller shoutting getting red in the face yelling at a very calm persistent venezuelan journalist.
The sexual matador really wants to go full Nazi.
After all this is over and Stephen Miller is placed under arrest or whatever else it may be, I will celebrate in the streets.
That will never happen unless we the people force it to happen.
Do you think Elon let's him watch while he's ploughing his wife?
Identifying sociopathy involves recognizing specific signs and symptoms. Here are common indicators:
Sociopaths often ignore rules and boundaries, engaging in illegal or unethical behaviors without remorse.
Sociopaths tell lies with ease, using them to gain trust or manipulate others. They may present a false image of themselves to achieve their goals.
Sociopaths struggle to maintain deep relationships, often viewing others as tools for personal benefit.
Sociopaths frequently seek new thrills. This need for stimulation can lead to risky behavior and frequent changes in jobs or relationships.
Sociopaths may exhibit aggressive behaviors when challenged or threatened, leading to conflicts in various settings.
Classic FOX blaming the "Democrats" from the civil war, which were in fact what we call today Republicans.
That mouth looks like it does the same things as Trump’s mouth
It's pretty fucked up that we're at the point of relying on service members to decide that an order is unlawful. The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't exactly side with the military members in this instance, but it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it. Here are some crib notes from the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
United States v. Sterling, 75 M.J. 407 (a lawful order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service).
(the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order).
(an order is presumed to be lawful, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption).
(to be lawful, an order must (1) have a valid military purpose, and (2) be clear, specific, and narrowly drawn; in addition, the order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order).
If chain of command is always followed, then the orders will be neutered before they can be carried out.
While any superior officer can circumvent subordinates, as far as I understand it, this would be highly unusual, insulting, and self-disparaging. Technically Miller himself could give the orders to specific troops to carry out, but as soon as his orders are issued, the troops commanding officer can belay those and issue their own.
There is a reason tyrants don't like chain of command.
Miller isn't in the military chain of command.
"Rebellion!" Screams the chronic angry man who is giving illegal orders that would be treason, regardless of who is giving the order.
ᛋᛋtephen Miller is a piece of shit
Raving lunatic
He‘s wrong on so many levels. He doesn’t even get the name of the party right. It’s the Democrat_**ic **_ party.
They do that deliberately. You see that a lot among Republicans. I assume it's similar motivations as when they say the US is "a republic, not a democracy". Apparently it irks them that they have democracy in the name.
