A video came out recently with a number of 6 congressmen and women who were former military members reminding US soldiers that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. They never specified any specific order or hinted any specific order.


Trump responded by posting that this was seditious behavior by traitors, that the words cannot be allowed to stand, and that sedition is punishable by death. He reshared other posts calling for the death of the hanging of these people.


My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.

If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).

so they can "suggest" things, but trump cannot?
dem goalposts be mobile...

A video came out recently with a number of 6 congressmen and women who were former military members reminding US soldiers that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. They never specified any specific order or hinted any specific order.


Trump responded by posting that this was seditious behavior by traitors, that the words cannot be allowed to stand, and that sedition is punishable by death. He reshared other posts calling for the death of the hanging of these people.


My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.

If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).

so now you are "suggesting" that it is ok for trump to be killed?
got it...

A video came out recently with a number of 6 congressmen and women who were former military members reminding US soldiers that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. They never specified any specific order or hinted any specific order.


Trump responded by posting that this was seditious behavior by traitors, that the words cannot be allowed to stand, and that sedition is punishable by death. He reshared other posts calling for the death of the hanging of these people.


My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.

If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).

i doubt that the brass at HPD would want one of their officers to be threatening the commander-in-chief...

so now you are "suggesting" that it is ok for trump to be killed?
got it...

My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.

If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).

No it is not.  Despicable.

Normally I’m not a narc, but then they went and  shot Charlie.

Screenshotting this one

My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.

If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).

What does this mean? He is the Commander in Chief. What military rules about "statements" that the POTUS must follow if he is the Chief?

sedition
/sĭ-dĭsh′ən/

noun

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
3. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.

*******************
So these 5th columnists are firmly in sedition territory, but U.S. code appears to require specific acts in furtherance of the call to treason in order for there to be grounds for prosecution.

So Trump rage-tweeted incorrectly, as there is no evidence that they have committed acts in furtherance of their call to insurrection.

Apparently under military code the death sentence is a possibility for the overt acts.

So what did we learn here:

1. Trump rage-tweets, I guess he can’t help it.

2. The Democrat party (as evidenced in the House) is composed of about half openly committed seditious insurrectionists who wish to overthrow our government in favor of Socialism / Communism, and the other half are just not openly so.

3. So now when Democrats hurl the F-word at us because we are anti-Communists, we can with proof in hand call them traitors.

That’s about it.

Wake me up when any of these traitors are arrested and legally prosecuted.

As for your comment about assassinating the President being justifiable on this basis, well, this is why eventually, unfortunately, civil conflict with you and yours is inevitable, as to paraphrase General Sherman, war is the remedy you have chosen.  We will give you your fill of it….

JUST LIKE LAST TIME

EEF gonna use the "daydream" defense too...

When they tell military rank and file to ignore "illegal orders," they are implying the orders are, in fact, illegal.  According to the UCMJ, the order can not be ignored unless the action is undeniably illegal based on common understanding of the law.  Firing live rounds on civilians at a protest without being fired upon would be illegal.  Torturing and killing prisoners would be illegal.

Expecting a private or sergeant to know which orders to follow and which to ignore is ridiculous.  There's a chain of command for a reason.  You follow the order unless you know it's illegal, but you still have to report it up the chain and have evidence to back you up.  Or you can ignore the order, be arrested, go to trial, and then present your evidence.  Either way, the order was probably carried out by the other soldiers, just not with you.

You have a duty to disobey orders you know to be illegal, but that doesn't mean you won't face consequences.  You don't need a video to tell you that.  All military members are educated in the rules and punishments contained in the UCMJ.

Anyone who was ever in the military would know that.

As for sedition, that's exactly what this is.  Telling soldiers to disobey orders they disagree with by labeling them illegal is an attempt to overthrow the military's chain of command.  These were not 'suggestions."  They were instructions.

To me, these 6 demorats only managed to weaken the military and the chain of command.

What do you suppose their message intent was by posting what they did.

Their hate for the POTUS is so great that they felt "the need" to remind military personnel that it is "ok to disobey illegal orders".

These 6 demorats, aside from one or two of them being in the CIA or some other crap agency, were high ranking officers.

They should know better.  But no, these pukes went on Yoo Boob of all places, to broadcast to ALL military personnel and civilians (who are pretty clueless as to how the military works) about not following illegal orders.

Let me tell you from a perspective of a lowly E-5 Sergeant.  That's what I was.  I was in charge of a team of 5 soldiers.  If my squad leader tells me to get ready for a ready reaction mission, I do so.  I don't question.  At my level we put trust in those above us.  We follow orders. 

The burden of if an order is illegal falls on the shoulders of flag officers, far above the rank and file of grunt soldiers.

Yet these 6 pukes, who clearly should have known better, let their TDS cloud their better judgement.  And broadcasted it to the rank and file.  All they did was destroy the discipline and trust that enlisted soldiers put on the NCO's and Officers that lead them.

These people are cowards, pukes, and traitors.  Hiding behind the 1st. Amendment.  Just because you can open your fuckin mouth doesn't mean you should.  Those who never served will never understand this.

This coming from a low ranked grunt who knows that once trust and discipline is gone, soldiers will die on the battlefront.  Last thing we want on our minds is second guessing.

When they tell military rank and file to ignore "illegal orders," they are implying the orders are, in fact, illegal.  According to the Ucmj, the order can not be ignored unless the action is undeniably illegal based on common understanding of the law.  Firing live rounds on civilians at a protest without being fired upon would be illegal.  Torturing and killing prisoners would be illegal.

Expecting a private or sergeant to know which orders to follow and which to ignore is ridiculous.  There's a chain of command for a reason.  You follow the order unless you know it's illegal, but you still have to report it up the chain and have evidence to back you up.  Or you can ignore the order, be arrested, go to trial, and then present your evidence.  Either way, the order was probably carried out by the other soldiers, just not with you.

You have a duty to disobey orders you know to be illegal, but that doesn't mean you won't face consequences.  You don't need a video to tell you that.  All military members are educated in the rules and punishments contained in the UCMJ.

Anyone who was ever in the military would know that.

As for sedition, that's exactly what this is.  Telling soldiers to disobey orders they disagree with by labeling them illegal is an attempt to overthrow the military's chain of command.  These were not 'suggestions."  They were instructions.

 

Those of us who served, know.

Those of us who didn't, don't.

so they can "suggest" things, but trump cannot?
dem goalposts be mobile...

Point to me where anyone in congress suggested executing the president. The video from the congressmen didn't even contain a suggestion.

so now you are "suggesting" that it is ok for trump to be killed?
got it...

So on a gun rights forum where one of the main arguments for gun rights is as a check against a tyrannical government you are taking issue with me saying we might have to resort to using firearms if the government turns tyrannical;?

So on a gun rights forum where one of the main arguments for gun rights is as a check against a tyrannical government you are taking issue with me saying we might have to resort to using firearms if the government turns tyrannical;?

The President is NOT "the government."

What does this mean? He is the Commander in Chief. What military rules about "statements" that the POTUS must follow if he is the Chief?

What I was saying is that what the congressmen said in the video is taken straight out of military regulations. That statement is both protected by the first amendment and entirely legal.

sedition
/sĭ-dĭsh′ən/

noun

1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
3. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.

*******************
So these 5th columnists are firmly in sedition territory, but U.S. code appears to require specific acts in furtherance of the call to treason in order for there to be grounds for prosecution.

So Trump rage-tweeted incorrectly, as there is no evidence that they have committed acts in furtherance of their call to insurrection.

Apparently under military code the death sentence is a possibility for the overt acts.

So what did we learn here:

1. Trump rage-tweets, I guess he can’t help it.

2. The Democrat party (as evidenced in the House) is composed of about half openly committed seditious insurrectionists who wish to overthrow our government in favor of Socialism / Communism, and the other half are just not openly so.

3. So now when Democrats hurl the F-word at us because we are anti-Communists, we can with proof in hand call them traitors.

That’s about it.

Wake me up when any of these traitors are arrested and legally prosecuted.

As for your comment about assassinating the President being justifiable on this basis, well, this is why eventually, unfortunately, civil conflict with you and yours is inevitable, as to paraphrase General Sherman, war is the remedy you have chosen.  We will give you your fill of it….

JUST LIKE LAST TIME

Dictionary definition isn't relevant, here is seditious conspiracy in the US code. There isn't sedition, just seditious conspiracy. Trump isn't a lawyer though so I will give him some wiggle room on that one.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim

§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.


Since when does reciting a military regulation amount to inciting a rebellion? Granted you have the "two or more persons" part but the rest is absent. Plus criminal law doesn't trump the 1st amendment.

If what the congressmen said really was a crime why didn't Trump have the DOJ arrest them immediately? Am I committing sedition right now when I point out said military regulation?


I suggest you read my comment about Trump more closer because I didn't say killing him would be justified at this point. I was speaking about the future, farther down the road if/when Trump turns into a tyrannical leader. Remember, that's one of the main reasons we have the 2nd amendment.

The President is NOT "the government."

And who would be the leader of a tyrannical US government, the speaker of the house, the chief justice of the supreme court?

please show me where i said someone in congress suggested executing the president...

Point to me where anyone in congress suggested executing the president. The video from the congressmen didn't even contain a suggestion.

exactly the plot of "a few good men"
lol

To me, these 6 demorats only managed to weaken the military and the chain of command.

What do you suppose their message intent was by posting what they did.

Their hate for the POTUS is so great that they felt "the need" to remind military personnel that it is "ok to disobey illegal orders".

These 6 demorats, aside from one or two of them being in the CIA or some other crap agency, were high ranking officers.

They should know better.  But no, these pukes went on Yoo Boob of all places, to broadcast to ALL military personnel and civilians (who are pretty clueless as to how the military works) about not following illegal orders.

Let me tell you from a perspective of a lowly E-5 Sergeant.  That's what I was.  I was in charge of a team of 5 soldiers.  If my squad leader tells me to get ready for a ready reaction mission, I do so.  I don't question.  At my level we put trust in those above us.  We follow orders. 

The burden of if an order is illegal falls on the shoulders of flag officers, far above the rank and file of grunt soldiers.

Yet these 6 pukes, who clearly should have known better, let their TDS cloud their better judgement.  And broadcasted it to the rank and file.  All they did was destroy the discipline and trust that enlisted soldiers put on the NCO's and Officers that lead them.

These people are cowards, pukes, and traitors.  Hiding behind the 1st. Amendment.  Just because you can open your fuckin mouth doesn't mean you should.  Those who never served will never understand this.

This coming from a low ranked grunt who knows that once trust and discipline is gone, soldiers will die on the battlefront.  Last thing we want on our minds is second guessing.