When they tell military rank and file to ignore "illegal orders," they are implying the orders are, in fact, illegal.

Non-sequitur. Not only did they not mention any specific order but it also doesn't indicate it was an order already given, it could be about some future order Trump issues.

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.

There certainly is a level of difficulty in clearly identifying an illegal order for a low level soldier. Anyone refusing an order is going to have to mount a defense justifying their actions, they can't simply claim it is illegal and expect to get off scott free.

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.

Except that is not what they said.
Even if they had suggested soldiers disobey a specific order that wasn't clearly an illegal order, the military doesn't answer to congress. Any competent soldier knows they answer to the president and that a congressman has no authority to tell them what order to follow or not follow.

These congressmen aren't stupid, they didn't come out and make a video that would constitute a crime.

jokes aside, there is a response video from (i think) congresspeople who have served explaining the UMCJ and how "illegal orders" are supposed to be handled
but that goes against EEF's feelings, so he ignored these facts...

exactly the plot of "a few good men"
lol

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

You said they suggested things. I pointed out what they suggested (wasn't actually a suggestion) wasn't comparable to what Trump suggested. So I thought maybe you were referring to some other suggestion by some other democrat congressmen thus my question.

jokes aside, there is a response video from (i think) congresspeople who have served explaining the UMCJ and how "illegal orders" are supposed to be handled
but that goes against EEF's feelings, so he ignored these facts...

Show me where it goes against anything I said. What facts did I ignore?

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.

Why do you waste our time on meaningless puffery like this?

You’ve dropped by to soil our carpets again, as is your proclivity, and been duly swatted with a wet newspaper.

See you next time you jump your fence 

jokes aside, there is a response video from (i think) congresspeople who have served explaining the UMCJ and how "illegal orders" are supposed to be handled
but that goes against EEF's feelings, so he ignored these facts...

Sh*t, I remember basic training and the hours of classroom instruction of the UCMJ and the threats from the Drill Sergeant if we ever had the audacity to fall asleep.

Believe me, no military person needs 6 puke demorats to tell (remind?) them about "illegal orders".  F*ck them.

‘Member back when you said it’s ok to assassinate the president? ‘Member?

Why do you waste our time on meaningless puffery like this?

You’ve dropped by to soil our carpets again, as is your proclivity, and been duly swatted with a wet newspaper.

See you next time you jump your fence 

Meaningless puffery? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that.

I have my positions, I come to the political section to give my thoughts just as all the others who frequent the political section. Do you prefer an echo chamber?

As for "dropping by, I am sure you can tell by my post count that I have been a participant in this community for a long time. You are a much more recent visitor.

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

It could be the VP after the president is ousted.  There's no way to answer that, since the list of alternative scenarios don't necessarily end up with Trump being in charge.

Meaningless puffery? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that.

I have my positions, I come to the political section to give my thoughts just as all the others who frequent the political section. Do you prefer an echo chamber?

As for "dropping by, I am sure you can tell by my post count that I have been a participant in this community for a long time. You are a much more recent visitor.

You're just mad that he quickly figured out what a useless waste of electrons your argumentative posts are.

 

You're just mad that he quickly figured out what a useless waste of electrons your argumentative posts are.

 

You tried to warn me, but noooo, I claimed he was just misunderstood.

You were both patient and right - have a good one!

I always look forward to OP coming back and posting. And what he post is pretty predictable.

Here we go again.

I always look forward to OP coming back and posting. And what he post is pretty predictable.

Here we go again.

Yeah it’s virtually always intended as red meat for us, sporadically interspersed with reasonable-sounding comments, as if doing so confuses anyone (except me and my bleeding heart for non-conformity).

But consistent with the above, the illusion of any real value-added evaporates after the first go-round, and all that’s left is meaningless back-and-forths.  Wish it weren’t that way.

Yeah it’s virtually always intended as red meat for us, sporadically interspersed with reasonable-sounding comments, as if doing so confuses anyone (except me and my bleeding heart for non-conformity).

But consistent with the above, the illusion of any real value-added evaporates after the first go-round, and all that’s left is meaningless back-and-forths.  Wish it weren’t that way.

His MO is to steer every thread into being about him in some way.  What he said, what he meant to say, what he didn't say, how he's the only one here speaking objectively, and on and on ad nauseam.  Narcissism at its finest.

Welcome to the party, Pal!  

It could be the VP after the president is ousted.  There's no way to answer that, since the list of alternative scenarios don't necessarily end up with Trump being in charge.

True. Doesn't matter who is the leader of a tyrannical government as far as the question goes about the use of force to remove the leader of that government from power.

You're just mad that he quickly figured out what a useless waste of electrons your argumentative posts are.

 

I don't get mad very easily, certainly not from internet trolling nor from Kalihi's response.

As far as making it about me or vague comments, that is all in your head. This clearly wasn't about me and it clearly wasn't vague. I gave a very specific stance on this story.

I think you just don't have a rebuttal so you constantly have to cover for that by trying to paint it as being about me. I just have never figured out whether you do it as a troll or an immature reaction to an argument you don't like.

I always look forward to OP coming back and posting. And what he post is pretty predictable.

Here we go again.

I am glad I entertain you.

The Pentagon is looking into allegations against Senator Kelley for his participation with 5 other stupids of their "illegal orders" video.

Senator Kelley, among other things, mentioned "We are just doing our jobs."

Oh really.  You are a congressman, Senator.  You are no longer in the military.  How about leaving the military to do what they do best.  Believe me, they do not need to be reminded of their job.

Now Senator, please do YOUR JOB.  Jan. 30th is right around the corner.  If you do your job right, you will help avoid another shutdown by you and your colleagues.

For once do something right.  Please.

I am glad I entertain you.

If it’s any consolation I take you seriously. It’s actually super disturbing that you aren’t concerned about losing your job because enough people in the department think the same way.

Our state government has clearly been infected by a dangerous ideology and they would kill us all if they thought they could get away with it.

Yeah it’s virtually always intended as red meat for us, sporadically interspersed with reasonable-sounding comments, as if doing so confuses anyone (except me and my bleeding heart for non-conformity).

But consistent with the above, the illusion of any real value-added evaporates after the first go-round, and all that’s left is meaningless back-and-forths.  Wish it weren’t that way.

You are reading into something that isn't there.

I do not profit from clicks like one might on other social media and I obviously do not post with the intention of feeling validated by a crowd of like-minded people so I do not have some ulterior motive, I am not deceiving anyone with such tactics as interspersing reasonable sounding arguments. Dishonesty is not within my nature and I have no motive, nothing to gain here, by tricking you. Not sure what I would be tricking you into anyway... Confuse you into becoming a moderate conservative?

Meaningless back and forths? I find meaning in two or more different ideas challenging each other but if you do not that's fine. Do you find Charlie Kirk's change my mind type discussions meaningless as well?
What I find meaningless is a bunch of people in an echo chamber patting each other on the back for repeating tribal mantras. I am not saying that is you, just referring to what forums like this would be if no one ever shared a position that wasn't in line with what the majority thought. 

Flapp is dishonest and will have you believe I am making it about me, despite a complete absence of any evidence of such. Nothing about this post is about me, not until flapp made it about me. Rather blatant dishonesty to attack someone and when they defend themselves claim they are making it about themselves but flapp doesn't shy away from dishonest debate tactics.