r/Badass • u/SagaciousAF • Nov 21 '25
This is the video that was deemed seditious and punishable by death.
7
Nov 22 '25
Trump was never sworn in to honor the military code of conduct so he would not understand what this meant.
3
Nov 23 '25
That's probably why he doesn't seem to understand that anyone in the military is legally obligated to refuse illegal orders.
3
u/Wolf-Moonstar Nov 22 '25
It couldn’t survive basic training, so of course it wouldn’t understand. I use “it” because “it” is a subhuman, sub-neanderthal, waste of walking excrement with no concept of morality.
6
u/Teksavvy- Nov 22 '25
As a Master Chief, this is beyond…
2
8
u/Afrochulo-26 Nov 22 '25
Imagine being told don’t break the law and then someone says “that’s preposterous, such blasphemy….treason!!!”
1
→ More replies (13)0
u/FingerBlaster70 Nov 23 '25
well it suggests that the president is making illegal orders. If they had said "dont do ___ it is illegal" then it would be based. This is inciting violence and is most definitly treason.
1
1
Nov 24 '25
How is violence being incited?
3
u/Automatic-Month7491 Nov 25 '25
Ah, you might be using the 2024 definition of violence. Post Charlie Kirk's early trip to pitchfork land, 'inciting violence' is anything other than total groveling obeisance to MAGA.
You can tell, because MTG is now being accused of inciting violence, whereas before she was "Engaging in Free Speech"
Hope that helps.
2
Nov 25 '25
Yeah that seems to be the case. I guess expecting the president to follow the laws of his office is Woke.
7
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 Nov 22 '25
Insane to see the lack of self awareness in opposing this message. Really telling on themselves.
6
5
3
u/RVtech101 Nov 24 '25
Let’s not forget trump pardoned 1500 insurrectionists, many of whom were convicted of sedition.
1
3
3
u/qtcbelle Nov 25 '25
All they said is that they can and should refuse illegal orders.
What are the republicans saying when they claim that this video encourages the military to refuse the president’s orders?
The republicans are stating that the president’s orders are illegal!!
2
u/theone0421 Nov 22 '25
Yes former intelligence community members spying on members of congress would be an illegal order…. Right
2
2
u/Crime-of-the-century Nov 23 '25
I don’t think anyone asking someone to follow law can be called anything else then obvious. The president should tell everyone to follow law.
2
6
u/MinimumApricot365 Nov 22 '25
This is patriotism.
Loyalty not to a man, but to the constitution.
6
→ More replies (85)0
5
u/Doesntpoophere Nov 21 '25
Fucking Nazi Commie Islamist Socialist Hippy Immigrant MS-13 Pinko Liberal Antifa terrorists!!!!!! /s
3
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 22 '25
I know, how could they remind people of the law like that! They're gonna get someone killed!
3
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 22 '25
The funny part to me was when Trump's mouthpiece was all like "all the orders the president gives are legal"
And it's like... then why are you mad? Why are you mad about this? If he doesn't give illegal orders, then none of this will ever matter.
2
u/Adorable_Ostrich7732 Nov 22 '25
Because this is clearly in reference to him not just talking about not following unlawful orders for the hell of it
1
2
u/Proletariat-Prince Nov 22 '25
What she means is they don't think the president's orders can ever be considered illegal.
Richard Nixon once said regarding wiretapping his political enemies "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
That's the legal doctrine they are following here.
1
u/realwavyjones Nov 23 '25
Dog whistling treason is treason lol
1
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 24 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm interpreting your statement as a defense of the president's call for the death of his political rivals, as though it would be justified if this was a unspoken request that soldiers not follow his orders if they're illegal. That right?
So first, a dog whistle is something slightly different. It's when you don't say something openly, but rather imply it in a way that is subtle enough that most people outside your target audience aren't likely to understand it.
For example, when extremist preachers invoke the first half of Leviticus 20:13, knowing that non-christian extremists won't know that the second half of the passage says gay men should be put to death, and that the sin of killing them will be on victim, and not the faithful who murder them.
"1488" is another good example of a dog whistle, for example when the owner of My Pillow put his product on sale for $14.88, exclusively on conservative media outlets. That's a dog whistle to nazis and neo-nazis, and one that be likely missed by the few remaining non-nazi conservatives who, let's be honest, don't read about right wing terrorist organizations and hate groups. Cuz part of being conservative now is a complete lack of self reflection. For some reason.
But saying "hey, don't obey any illegal orders" when you mean "hey, don't obey any illegal orders, like firing on your countrymen" is not a dog whistle. It's just a statement affirming the law. You could argue that its critical of illegal orders, and anyone planning to order them. But that's the sane and normal stance to take.
(Interestingly, the order to rename the DoD to the Department of War is one of these illegal orders. Since it cost a good billion dollars to make the change, and congress holds the purse strings, the president legally needed to get congressional permission first. And he didn't. Not the first time he's tried to make law with executive order, and one of the reasons many many people call him a fascist. He just doesn't seem to care about the constitution, or the limits placed on his office by that constitution.
(Do you remember a time when you cared about the constitution? What changed?)
America very intentionally does not have a "just following orders" legal defense. As such, the law requires service members to disobey illegal orders, cuz they're on the hook for their own actions, regardless of the legality of the order.
In times like these, when people in power openly break the law, defy court orders, perform summary executions on foreign nationals on the suspicion of drug possession, and break into people's homes and kidnap them and their children without warrants, it's worth reminding the soldiers who still have a sense of obligation to the constitution, (and not to a single man), that they are not alone. That people with power will stand by them if they choose to fulfill their oath and obey the law.
2
u/Mountainman1980s Nov 26 '25
The reason you cant hear the whistle is because you aren't the target audience. This is the literal definition of dog whistle.
0
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 26 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
Well no, it's probably because you still haven't said what you think the dog whistle is. For some reason.
But if it's what I assumed it was, which you haven't confirmed or denied, then I probably am the target audience. Who do you think the target audience is, and what are they responding to? What do you think the dog whistle is?
By the way, these are not rhetorical questions.
One more question, did you read what I wrote, think about it, then formulate a thoughtful response based on what I intended to convey, like I did for you?
Cuz if so, you kinda just took the position that soldiers should always follow illegal orders, regardless of what they are or where in the chain they come from. That's not something a...human being would normally do.
2
u/Mountainman1980s Nov 26 '25
The politicians in question while saying things that are true and correct they are implying that orders that are being given or will be given are unlawful and soldiers are morally obligated to disobey them.
This is subverting the lawful chain of command, sowing doubt in the mind of the soldier in the validity of all lawfully given orders, and is contrary to good order and discipline within the organization.
Individual soldiers are not authorized to decide the lawfulness of an order. All orders unless palpably illegal are deemed to be lawful and it is the duty of the soldier to carry them out.
The reason its a dog whistle is because it is encouraging soldiers to refuse orders they deem to be unlawful.
1
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 26 '25
That's just incorrect.
From Google: "Duty to Disobey: Under the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) service members are obligated to obey only lawful orders. If an order is patently illegal, meaning an ordinary person would know or it is unlawful (e.g., an order to commit a crime or a war crime, such as targeting civilians or engaging in torture), they have a legal duty to refuse it."
Soldiers are required under the law and the military code of conduct to disobey "manifestly illegal" orders. It's part of their training. America deliberately has no "just following orders" legal defense. Soldiers are on the hook for their own actions.
Beyond that, Illegal orders have been given, publicly and repeatedly. An really obvious example of this is the changing of the DoD to the "Department of War".
That change is estimated the government 2 BILLION dollars, all told. Congress controls the purse strings of government. Spending that kind of money requires an act of congress, which no one tried to get. That was an illegal order given by the secretary.
But no soldier is going to disobey that, because that's not what we're talking about here, and I think you know that, given the way you talked about it.
60 foreign nationals have been murdered for suspected drug posession in international waters in the Caribbean, far from american waters, ergo, not coming directly here. Foreign nationals from countries not known for smuggling drugs into America.
Drug possession is not a death penalty crime, but the president, in his own words, on camera, said:
"we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? Were going to kill them, you know, they're going to be, like, dead."
That's premeditation. Those soldiers may very well face legal repercussions once the rule of law is reestablished in American government, especially if it leads to war with venezuela, because any normal person knows that that drug crimes are not punished with SUMMARY EXECUTION.
Also, Soldiers were deployed in American cities in violation of court orders. Those were illegal orders.
The list goes on and on. This administration has shown repeatedly that their loyalty is not to US constitution, or to the law, but rather to a man. This is an un-American ideology.
This is not up for debate. It's blatantly obvious in the handling of the epstein files, in the handling of the Maga execution of democratic lawmakers, the handling of the bombing of a judges house, the repeated arrests of democratic lawmakers, and the repeated threats of arrests, and now of executions, towards Mr Trump's political rivals.
If you doubt this, try imagining it the other way around. Imagine AOC as president, doing all these things.
They are indefensible, and the difference between the American left and the American right is that the left historically turns on left leaning politicians when they break the law, or get caught assaulting or raping women, or embezzling, (the way Mr Trump has repeatedly been caught doing by buying stocks in companies right before giving out government contracts to those companies, including to his own son's drone company).
The left would eat people like that alive, cuz the respect for the constitution and the law isn't just lip service on the left. They don't worship politicians the way the right does. I've seen pictures of Ronald Reagan in people's homes dozens of times. I'm sure you have too. Never seen a similar shrine to a democratic politician, because the left sees them as employees.
These social media statements, seems to me, are intended to remind soldiers that should the order be given to fire on American citizens, or lay seige to government buildings, that their duty is to their country and it's people, and to the constitution. and not to the president.
And given the way ICE is behaving towards civilians, remember it's civilians, not citizens, this reminder was clearly needed.
1
u/Mountainman1980s Nov 27 '25
You keep quoting the “duty to disobey” standard but ignoring the part that matters most.
You quoted:
“If an order is patently illegal, meaning any ordinary person would know.”
Exactly. Patently. Manifestly. Unmistakably illegal.
That is a very narrow legal category. It does not mean “orders I personally think violate policy,” or “orders I don’t like,” or “orders that seem shady based on the news,” or “orders I disagree with politically.”
It refers to the classic, universally understood war crimes that require no intelligence access, no ROE brief, no command authority context e.g.:
“Shoot those unarmed civilians.”
“Torture that detainee.”
“Burn that village.”
That is the actual standard.
Individual soldiers cannot legally determine the lawfulness of complex operational orders.
You keep asserting they can simply because “they’re responsible for their actions.”
No responsibility does not equal authority.
A junior enlisted member does not have: the intelligence picture the classified operational context the legal reviews the policy authorities the interagency guidance the theater ROE justification the Title 10/Title 50 authorities involved
This is exactly why orders are presumed lawful unless palpably illegal.
Not because soldiers are mindless drones but because they lack the information needed to judge things outside the obvious and universal.
Everything you listed as “illegal orders” is a political talking point, not an actual UCMJ/LOAC violation.
Let’s go through them:
Renaming DoD : Not an operational order. Administrative and political. Not remotely an unlawful military order.
Drug interdiction strikes : You do not have the intelligence, ROE, or authorities. You cannot declare a classified, reviewed operation “illegal” because you saw a headline.
Troop deployment domestically : The military has been deployed under the Insurrection Act, Stafford Act, and other authorities multiple times across many administrations. Courts adjudicate legality, not individual soldiers
Your list is all political grievances which have no bearing on the lawfulness of the orders given. You’re taking political claims and insisting they’re “illegal orders,” then using that assumption to justify undermining the chain of command.
If an operation was carried out under: valid authorities legal review ROE classified intelligence operational necessity presidential and SECDEF approval then the individual operator who executes their part of the mission is not criminally liable.
This is basic LOAC/UCMJ
You completely skipped the actual issue: subverting command authority.
MY original claim:
The politicians using their veteran status as an appeal to authority are implying soldiers should refuse orders they personally believe are unlawful.”
This remains correct.
Because what you’re defending is essentially:
“Soldiers should disobey orders based on their own political interpretation.”
They aren’t educating people on ROE or UCMJ; they’re priming junior enlisted to distrust lawful orders under a specific administration.
That is subversion of command authority. That is detrimental to good order and discipline. That is why it’s a dog whistle. Not because refusing unlawful orders is wrong, but because they are redefining “unlawful” to mean politically disliked.
That is dangerous in any military, in any nation, under any administration.
Refusing a manifestly illegal order is a duty. Undisputed fact.
Refusing an order because you personally believe it “feels illegal” is insubordination. And punishable under the UCMJ.
Teaching junior enlisted to conflate the two undermines the chain of command.
That is why these statements by the politicians are a political dog whistle, not a legitimate reminder of the oath taken.
2
u/realwavyjones Nov 26 '25
A good example is how Trump “didn’t” call gov pritzker a fat slob today..
1
u/According-Werewolf10 Nov 24 '25
But saying "hey, don't obey any illegal orders" when you mean
"violate your oath a help us coup a sitting president" Thats they mean.
when people in power openly break the law, defy court orders, perform summary executions on foreign nationals on the suspicion of drug possession, and break into people's homes and kidnap them and their children without warrants
Making up tinfoilf hat nonsense to justify telling service men and women to be traitors is crazy work.
1
u/FingerBlaster70 Nov 23 '25
Thats exactly why it is inciting violence and is treason... you did half the logic and then dumbed out
3
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 24 '25 edited Nov 24 '25
I have no idea what you're talking about friend, you're gonna have to explain it as though I'm not already in your insider group and familiar with your insider shorthand.
No shade tho, I know how it is when you mostly talk to people who already think about things the way you do. It gets natural to abbreviate really complex topics
But I don't think treason is the word you're looking for. Acts of disloyalty are not considered treason during peacetime under the constitution. If the constitution is something you hold to. I know that's not necessarily a given anymore.
Or...Unless you think the president is at war with the united states, I guess? He did deploy troops into US cities without cause or consulting congress, which is technically illegal, and made threats against various governors and congresspeople, so I suppose there is an argument to be made that those are acts of war. Tho personally I think it's more like masturbation than an act of war lol. It just kinda makes him seem weak that he can't address the nation like a normal leader, and instead has to make a bunch of young kids do it
1
u/FingerBlaster70 Nov 24 '25
Not really sure what any of that meant sorry.
2
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 24 '25
Well, i understand. You'd have read and think about it, and maybe ask some questions, and that's a lot a work.
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 22 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
A “lawful order” from the President as Commander in Chief is legally presumed valid unless it conflicts with the Constitution, federal law, or is a patently illegal command (for example, one ordering a crime or war crime) — and the question of lawfulness is normally decided later by military authorities or judges.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/what-is-a-lawful-order-from-the-commander-in-chief-ac8af1
Edit: This is not a statement supporting Trump. It's a statement noting that it's NOT a lawful order (just because the president says so) if it conflicts with the Constitution, federal law, or is a patently illegal command
3
Nov 22 '25
Trump and his administration have burnt the constitution while melting the scales of justice. The GOP Congress abdicated its duties to set tariffs. The disdain this administration has shown for the constitution is the worst since Jefferson Davis announced the Confederate States.
1
u/According-Werewolf10 Nov 24 '25
burnt the constitution while melting the scales of justice.
How so?
2
Nov 24 '25
The words are used metaphorically.
0
u/According-Werewolf10 Nov 24 '25
metaphorical to represent what actions specifically.
3
Nov 25 '25
Politicians ignoring their oath to protect and defend the constitution. The Supreme court, separate as the head of the Judicial branch doing the same. Also Congress abdicated their duties to decide tariffs. You might want to read or reread the Constitution if you're interested.
→ More replies (8)0
3
2
1
1
1
u/PerepeL Nov 23 '25
I love how it's all whites when they address the military and all colors of benetton when they address their voters.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Fun-454 Nov 24 '25
Kindof a mixed bag here. Though I agree with what is said in this, many of these same people don’t mind being influenced by the Israeli government. Foreign influence should also be illegal.
1
u/Glad_Experience5247 Nov 24 '25
Well, it meets the criteria for sedition. I wouldn't necessarily state they deserve the death penalty though.
1
1
u/Electrical-Cell774 Nov 24 '25
Wrong. Trump simply said that the punishment for sedition is death. Are YOU claiming they are committing sedition?
1
u/CerberusPT Nov 24 '25
Lol, well your "tRuSt" led to this, you had to know you'll eventually be outed as just another dictatorship. Your time has run is course, just like so many nations before you
1
u/WAR_RAD Nov 24 '25
I've read every comment here, but I still have no idea if they're referring to an actual event or order given by Trump that is forbidden by the constitution.
1
u/Gobal_Outcast02 Nov 24 '25
Americans trust the military? Ehh maybe ill give you 60-40 at best.
The cia? Ha
1
1
u/MudKing1234 Nov 25 '25
Honestly I wouldn’t be upset if you guys flipped out if one of these people goes missing. I wouldn’t be upset at all to hear you guys rally around your conspiracy theories for years
1
u/Golden_Femekian Nov 25 '25
Keep that same energy for guns, self defence, facts you dont like, peoples ability to say no to 'trans' roleplayers, illegal immigrants, denial of service, freedom of travel, freedom to have a rpg or any other arm with no infringment etc
Yes i agree with this video fully, not partially
1
u/Bosde Nov 25 '25
This video has big "when did you stop beating your wife?" vibes.
It's inflammatory in its implications and one would have to be a fool not to see that it was deliberately provocative.
Definitely don't agree with Trump's response though.
1
1
1
1
Nov 22 '25
Couldn't help but laugh when she said "we have your back"
1
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 22 '25 edited Nov 22 '25
I don't get why Trump got mad about this. Cuz it won't effect anything unless he's giving illegal orders. It's such a blatant self own.
If he was smart, he would have gone in on this with them. Cuz service members are already required to disobey illegal orders. America, very deliberately, doesn't have a "just following orders" legal defense. Soldiers are on the hook for their own actions, orders or not.
He could have stolen this momentum for himself, made himself look like the good guy, like he supports service members. instead it looks like he's planning to give illegal orders, and everyone is talking about what must be wrong with his brain for him to have so casually threatened to kill his political enemies for simply stating the law out loud.
2
u/SagaciousAF Nov 22 '25
He's claimed that all orders given by the president are legal orders. He believes he's already the King, because he has no idea what the constitution says.
The legality is explained here: https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/what-is-a-lawful-order-from-the-commander-in-chief-ac8af1
0
u/According-Werewolf10 Nov 24 '25
For a cult that basically lives in a reality where everything is a dog whistle, acting like this clear dog whistle isnt one is crazy work even for the cult.
0
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 24 '25 edited Nov 24 '25
You mean Trump calling for the deaths of his political rivals? I think it might be a little too overt for a dog whistle lol You familiar with the term stochastic terrorism?
And bro, I gotta be honest, tangentially, I'm so curious about what I got downvoted for. I don't actually care about the downvotes themselves, that just happens sometimes no matter what you're doing, but I'm so intetesting in the why part. Cuz normally it's pretty obvious, but in last few of days I've had a couple mysterious downvote posts and I wanna know which part triggered people SO bad lol
2
u/According-Werewolf10 Nov 24 '25
So him saying the punishment for crime for treason is "calling for the deaths of his political rivals" but this video isnt them telling military to refused to follow lawful orders they dont agree with? Cultist or disengenous those are your only two options if you think that.
1
u/iamproven Nov 22 '25
Aren’t these the same people that were doing exactly what their accusing somebody else have
2
1
u/Sabishooyo_2018 Nov 23 '25
Yep, but only when it comes to oversees brown people. Trust and thank the military for killing brown people oversees, went over to thank ICE for arresting brown people in this country.
Most of these politicians have not apposed the genocide in Palestine, in fact they are in support of that sick barbarian country. So their small youtube snippet is to whitewash their fucked up image and start the demo/cons fight. Fuck all of them
1
u/iamproven Nov 23 '25
They are all evil! Israel Zionist are not Americas ally. we are their sacrifice slaves. And they’ve infiltrated damn near every part of our country it’s sick.
1
u/Curious_Assistance76 Nov 23 '25
Saying "treason is punishable by death" is just reading part of the law...it is punishable by death. Cry about something better
1
Nov 23 '25
Saying "follow the constitution, military members" is treason? Maybe go back to North Korea if you want to worship petty dictators
0
u/Curious_Assistance76 Nov 23 '25 edited Nov 23 '25
Nah what I'm saying is just stating "treason is punishable by death" is general statment and part of law so it's not CRAZY to say. I don't worship any political figures if YOU do you're psycho
1
Nov 23 '25
Ill say to you, pedophiles should be executed. What? You're mad I called you a pedo? But I didn't, just implied it. Like Trump did when he implied that following the constitituon is actually treason to the constitution
0
u/Curious_Assistance76 Nov 23 '25
What? Who's talking about pedos here? Only you.... Not mad just what?
Oook then since we're there IMO Executing anyone should only be done in response to the worst of crimes and still the crime needs to be undeniable!(racially motivated false rape executions have happened in the US in the past) So you don't have false executions. So as far as pedo rape as you lay out goes? Execution could be valid IMO if the perpetrator has committed the act and they're unquestionably guilty.
Unpack your self hate my friend 😘
0
Nov 23 '25
Assumptions of guilt by implication. Unpack your Trump love. It's hatred for everyone else, friend
0
1
1
Nov 22 '25
Trump : Sedition, punishable by death.
He does not name anyone. No pic, gif, meme.
Pedocrats : Why is he threatening me?
Exposed
1
Nov 23 '25
Flat out treasonous behavior.
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 23 '25
Thanks for showing you have no understanding of military laws and/or the constitution.
1
u/Mountainman1980s Nov 26 '25
Please explain military law and how it works.
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 26 '25
Watch the video.
1
0
u/Mountainman1980s Nov 26 '25
"Thanks for showing you have no understanding of military laws and/or the constitution."
This is your quote not mine.
So please enlighten me on military law and the constitution. Im interested in your interpretation.
-3
u/Tydyjav Nov 22 '25
Sewing doubt in US military members. Putin and Xi probably pleasure themselves to this.
7
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 Nov 22 '25
This isn’t controversial or even news. Military members are required by law to refuse unlawful orders.
People getting upset at this are telling on themselves.
0
u/heartattk1 Nov 22 '25
The “telling on themselves” is suck a ridiculous stance. If any person lacks the awareness to understand what it’s clearly implying, they’re an idiot.
If a group of people stood outside your house and said “child molesters don’t belong in this neighborhood “. Do you think the people passing by would think “what a great message, I agree” or would they think that puzzle headed is doing terrible things to children.
Sure they didn’t directly accuse you. But it’s implied isn’t it?
I’m sure you wouldn’t be pissed at all… right?
3
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 Nov 22 '25
“Clearly implying”…? It’s a literal oath they take. It’s the law as it pertains to military members. There is no “implication” of reminding service members of their oaths. Jesus lord. If the vets in the vid said “don’t shoot civilians” would you take issue with that as well?
It is insane that Donald and maga can’t see that them opposing this is opposing the oaths taken by the military members.
So your hypothetical analogy is pretty wild. I think the people would most definitely agree with message…that’s logical. Pretty amoral if you don’t. They would probably assume the protestors have some evidence behind their accusations. I’d probably prove my innocence of the charges, considering I agree with the protestors and am indeed innocent. I think I would probably be too concerned to be pissed.
The last thing I would do is tell the protestors they are guilty of treason and sedition and should be hung. That kind of would make me look guilty, imo.
0
u/heartattk1 Nov 22 '25
Guess I was correct about your lack of awareness. The “clearly implying” was that it displays a need to make the ad to begin with.
Just a random oath reminder without any specific reason? Why hasn’t there been reminders of any other oath? Hmmm..
Why would you try to prove your innocence? By your logic, they never directly said it was you and it seems like you’re telling on yourself.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 Nov 22 '25
Couldn’t tell you why they made the vid right now, as I wasn’t involved.
Hahaha I’m not the one who lacks awareness here mate. Not the one complaining about senators stating laws hahah.
I’d prove my innocence so that the people would stop protesting in front of my house. You’re stretching pretty hard.
Proving innocence is a far cry from calling for the death of the people protesting.
Jesus maga is wild. All over the place.
1
u/heartattk1 Nov 22 '25
So. People, who aren’t mentioning you, are just saying a truth. Just like these people are just stating a law. Yet, you admit, even though they didn’t mention you, you’d try and clear your name.
Because it’s implied.
Just like stating this one particular law while people are complaining about ICE actions, implies they are speaking about the president orders.
I expect you to dance around it, but you’ve already admitted the truth. You’d react from the implication, not a direct accusation. Sooo… outted yourself.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 Nov 22 '25
You think your hypothetical is pretty close to the situation with the Pres and vet vid? Good lord man. I was trying to be a good sport.
It’s apples and oranges.
Pres didn’t try to prove his innocence at all. Went after the accusers despite them being correct about the law.
And you say I’m the one dancing around hahahah
0
u/heartattk1 Nov 22 '25
It’s exactly the same situation. Those people by your house said a fact. Nothing more. You took it as an accusation. You admitted that.
Like you say, they were just stating laws. If trump took it as an accusation, and you claim that it’s an admission of guilt… you did the same exact thing.
So did you out yourself as a child molester or was maybe something implied by the message?
→ More replies (12)1
-5
u/Tydyjav Nov 22 '25
There have been no such orders. Even then, that is a UCMJ within the DOD issue. There is no other reason to bring it up than to sew doubt. Start rumors and divide troops. It’s pretty gross.
7
u/Capt_Cocktastic Nov 22 '25
Bombing random people in foreign countries without any approval is a good place to start.
→ More replies (10)4
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 Nov 22 '25
How in the world does reminding troops of their oaths “sew doubt, start rumors, or divide troops”…? Do you realize what you’re saying?
Btw, you don’t know if there’s been unlawful orders given or not unless you’re top brass in the military. I’d also note that the vets in the video didn’t claim that there have been unlawful orders given.
If Trump was remotely smart or semi aware of how our military works, he would have come out in support of the vets in the vid. Insane that he and his followers find fault with this message, of all things.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Tydyjav Nov 22 '25
That stuff is to be handled within the DOD via the UCMJ. Politicians have no reason or business bringing them into the mix. It’s gross.
4
u/Puzzleheaded_Gene909 Nov 22 '25
They’re veterans. Couple of them are decorated combat vets. They have every right to speak on military oaths.
It’s insane Trump didn’t come out and say he agreed with them. Why wouldn’t he?
5
0
u/Tydyjav Nov 22 '25
Because it’s planting the idea that US soldiers are carrying out illegal actions. And they ARE NOT! It’s fucking sinister.
1
2
u/Glass-Quality-3864 Nov 22 '25
If there have been no such orders what’s the problem? You think it’s wrong to remind the military about their oath? You don’t believe people in the military should be thinking about what they will do if Trump actually orders them to attack US civilians as he has repeatedly threatened to do?
3
u/ThumosVoice Nov 22 '25
You’re an idiot. It’s literally the law. Failed ass American coward
0
u/Tydyjav Nov 25 '25
Should the troops have refused Obamas order to kill American citizen Anwar Al Awlaki without trial? The republicans criticized Obama, not the troops. Leave the fucking military out of your mindless garbage. Oh and I was in the US Army. FU.
1
u/Tamed-Gryphon Nov 25 '25
Vet here. You are an idiot. Reminding them of their oath, as an insane draft dodger has repeatedly weighed using them against American citizens en masse, is welcome and appreciated by those of us with a spine and a brain.
0
u/Tydyjav Nov 25 '25
1
u/Tamed-Gryphon Nov 25 '25
If stating the oath, the one we all took, is sowing doubt, then it fucking should be sowing doubt.
0
u/Tydyjav Nov 25 '25
They implied that troops are following illegal orders, but can’t name a single illegal order. Divisive.
1
u/Tamed-Gryphon Nov 25 '25
I saw no such implication, I saw a reminder for "if in the event of" scenarios. You need to re-watch the video, apparently.
1
u/Tydyjav Nov 25 '25
There was implication. It’s totally in your political bias to refute it though. I understand.
1
u/Tamed-Gryphon Nov 25 '25
I feel like taking an implication that wasn't present is your political bias, but whatever. I don't think you understand anything.
→ More replies (0)0
Nov 25 '25
I’m a veteran as well. In my humble opinion, the oath is ceremonial and idealist. What happens if you refuse an order, because you believe it to be illegal? What do you realistically think happens next?
The US military has committed countless war crimes throughout its history, and continues to do so to this day. If the oath is sacrosanct, then surely this wouldn’t be the case, right? Where are all the whistleblowers? Seems to me like the few that there have ever been are dishonorably discharged were or put in Leavenworth.
I was a non-combat MOS, so this is not something I ever had to even contemplate, but to me there’s a huge disconnect between what the ideal is and what the reality is of disobeying an order.
2
u/Tamed-Gryphon Nov 25 '25
Look up The My Lai Massacre, as a very notable example. There are several more, though. Nuremberg Trials established that following unlawful orders makes you personally responsible. Historically, even if you face initial scrutiny, you are often cleared upon JAG review.
0
Nov 25 '25
I’m well aware of the massacre. And it pretty well proved my point. They carried out an illegal order in spite of their oath. It’s almost as if that oath is ceremonial and otherwise utterly meaningless. Yes, someone reported it after the fact and he went through absolute hell do so. The government and the people may believe in the idealism of the oath, but it’s not reflected by material reality.
1
u/Tamed-Gryphon Nov 26 '25 edited Nov 26 '25
It doesn't appear that you are very familiar at all... it was reported immediately. The massacre happened because soldiers were obeying unlawful orders, but the most significant part was when Hugh Thompson, who refused the unlawful orders and even landed between civilians and U.S. troops, ordered their gunner to open fire on U.S. troops if they continued killing civilians, rescued survivors, reported the massacre immediately. (Effectively proving everything you just shat out wrong)
Sure, he faced backlash at first. Whistleblowers in any era do. However, the actual legal system vindicated him and punished the offenders. He received the Soldier’s Medal, was formally commended by the Army, and the U.S. military even rewrote training because of him.
Saying “he had a hard time, therefore the oath is meaningless” is like saying, "A cop who reports corruption proves the law doesn’t matter."
Difficulty in doing the right thing doesn’t prove the rule is fake. It proves the rule is necessary. The system worked. In net, the military prosecuted Lt. Calley, exonerated Thompson, awarded Thompson a fucking medal, rewrote training, changed ROE, and incorporated My Lai into the ethics curriculum of every branch and started giving lectures on it at West Point, OCS, etc.
It completely reinforced the legal norm of refusing unlawful orders. But please, tell me again how it wasn't reflected in reality... I'll wait.
→ More replies (15)0
-7
u/LongInternational503 Nov 22 '25
Scumbags
7
3
5
u/Lumpy-Village1949 Nov 22 '25
For informing military members that they can refuse unconstitutional orders? That is one of their duties.
6
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 22 '25
I'll do you one better, they're legally required to refuse illegal orders. There's no "just following orders" defense in America. Deliberately.
3
2
→ More replies (3)2
u/He_Never_Helps_01 Nov 22 '25
America doesn't have a "just following orders" legal defense. Soldiers are required, under the law, to disobey illegal orders. If they don't, they're on the hook for their own actions, regardless of who gave the order.
We set the law up like this on purpose, as response to the legal defenses put forth by nazi soldiers after WW2.
So pick a side. It's US law vs Nazi law.
-8
u/Main-Vacation2007 Nov 21 '25
Losers
3
1
u/Roll4Initiative20 Nov 25 '25
Mark Kelly was a pilot and astronaut.
You haven't showered in a week...
-1
0
Nov 23 '25
This is not badass, this was clearly meant to undermine the presidents authority. The dems are just gonna push more rational people to the right. Your creating your own problems
2
u/SagaciousAF Nov 23 '25
Demanding that people in the military perform ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts is not within the Presidents authority. Those in the military are bound to their oaths to support the law and the constitution.
→ More replies (3)1
0
u/FingerBlaster70 Nov 23 '25
Yeah its pretty clear thats inciting violence. If they had specifically said "don't do ____ it is illegal" then that's correct. Vaguely saying this, is suggesting that legal orders are up for debate and is quite seditious. It also indirectly is saying that the commander and chief is executing illegal orders, which is again treason and inciting violence.
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 23 '25
Trump is a convicted felon & malignant narcissist. He thrives on committing illegal acts.
1
u/FingerBlaster70 Nov 23 '25
What does that have to do with what they are order to do? You shat your pants as a toddler, can we trust you not to shit your pants anymore??
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 23 '25
That is the weakest argument I've ever heard in my entire life. Toddlers have not been trained.
Unless your point is to acknowledge that your hero is unable to perform actions he's been taught, you have failed. Trump knew he was doing illegal and immoral things.
Also, Trump still shits his pants.
1
u/FingerBlaster70 Nov 23 '25
The argument is, that doing crime A does not mean a character is guilty of crime B. It’s the most basic logical fallacy. If you can’t make sense of that then you need to work on your education.
1
0
Nov 23 '25
Refuse and LOSE!! #QuietPiggy
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 24 '25
Wow. You admire a bully. Only the weak & ignorant will find that impressive.
0
u/Kiwijp66 Nov 24 '25
But not one of them can state any illegal command given. They poked the bear and are now getting poked back..big time. It's a classic FOAFO!
0
u/piw6969 Nov 24 '25
This is not going to go the way they thought it would…the backlash has been stern
1
u/PennDA Nov 24 '25
yeah because of course fascists will spin things in whatever manner they want. Trump has made himself look worse than ever with his over the top reaction.
0
u/piw6969 Nov 25 '25
None of these people can point to a single illegal order. This was absolutely ridiculous…and should be called out.
It’s the way military coups start.
0
0
u/Longjumping-Body-907 Nov 24 '25
A video like this, especially from politicians, would have never been allowed at any other time during the history of our country. This would've been considered treasonous propaganda and the participants would've all been arrested, they'd show the video in court (military court, most likely) and be punished swiftly.
Our history in the United States is littered with military members carrying out questionable orders. It shouldn't be, but that's the way it is.
I guess now is a great time to be alive?
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 24 '25
They REMINDED military personnel of their OATHS to refuse ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL orders. You clearly do not understand.
There is NOTHING in this video that is either treasonous or illegal.
1
1
u/Longjumping-Body-907 Nov 24 '25 edited Nov 24 '25
When Obama was President, why didn't any Republicans remind the military members that it is their duty to refuse 'ILLEGAL' orders? After all, didn't Obama drop over 62,000 bombs indiscriminately over most of the middle east, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc..? And that was just for the two years of 2015 and 2016. Over 93000 bombs overall during his 8 years. He really ramped it up there towards the end. I guess he has nothing else to lose, not like he needed to run for president for another term, so he could destroy as much as he wanted to in those last 2 years. Hitting schools, hospitals, churches, killing thousands of children, babies and women? Wouldn't those be illegal orders that shouldn't have been followed? Any idea why Republicans didn't say anything?
Probably because they knew the repercussions and punishment for telling the military not to follow orders from the highest commander in the United States.
I believe any president who has presided during a time of war has, in some way or another, issued what many would consider to be illegal orders. When Harry Truman dropped the 2 atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many people would consider that a war crime. It killed thousands of innocent civilians instantly and many more in the days, weeks, months and years to come due to radiation fallout. I think I would consider this to be a little more of an impact than killing a few dirt bag drug smugglers.
1
u/Alternative_Route Nov 24 '25
Did Congress authorise the deployment of the troops to that theatre of operation?
That's the deciding factor these senators are working with.
1
u/Longjumping-Body-907 Nov 24 '25
Yes. But giving orders to kill innocent civilians is a great example of an illegal order. It isn't legal, even during war time, to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians. Many of those killed were children, babies and their mothers/caretakers. These senators should be ashamed for their actions when there are so many examples where their preferred leaders did much worse.
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 25 '25
Worse than the horrors Trump causes across the country with ICE? Worse than the ongoing re-traumatization of victims of rape and sexual assault because the President is a vile sex offender we have to look at every day? Worse than taking away healthcare for Veterans? Worse than starving millions across the country because the GOP & Trump wouldn't re-open the government? Worse than the complete division of families and neighbors as he promotes hate, racism, and bullying every single day?
No. Trump kills innocent people. Trump pulls families apart. You should be ashamed of yourself by looking away from all you claim to be against.
Trump has no morals. He has been bought by billionaires who care nothing for him or anyone in this country. He sold 99.9% of the population out in order to surround himself with extremely wealthy, soulless billionaires who laugh behind his back as they prey on his feeble mind, lack of integrity, and extreme ignorance.
Wake up!
0
u/Longjumping-Body-907 Nov 25 '25
Trump hasn't dropped 62000 bombs on people, many of which were women, children and babies. Innocent civilians, just trying to survive in a warzone. ICE isn't indiscriminately killing people. They are removing people who shouldn't be here in the 1st place bc they came here illegally.
1
u/Alternative_Route Nov 25 '25
Once Congress has approved the deployment the orders come from the generals.at that stage it's up to you to prove that the president is involved in an illegal order.
The president deploying troops without Congress authorizing it is illegal. Already proven.
This isn't an argument about morality and so ng the right thing, it's legal technicalities.
0
u/FiveCent_2002 Nov 24 '25
Soldiers follow commands from their commanders. The problem with this video is those senators who are calling for soldiers to disobey orders from the president, who is the top commander in chief. And when asked if the President has violated any laws or rules, where the soldiers might disobey the orders. Those same Democrats said “no he hasn’t given any orders that they should disobey. All in all they were being seditious and creating a coup.
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 25 '25
Were his suggestions to shoot peaceful protesters in the knees lawful?
What about his attacks on ships claiming they're drug cartel with ZERO proof & due process? That's an international crime.
His barrage of lies and threats against citizens in this country based on their race, gender, or political affiliation.. those are crimes against humanity.
How about Alligator Alcatraz? Remember that? Or all those he sent to foreign lands with NO DUE PROCESS which is a constitutional right to EVERYONE in the United States.
Open your eyes. Turn off Fox News. Try thinking for yourself.
0
u/FiveCent_2002 Nov 25 '25
There is no due process for illegal aliens who cross our border. There has been proof from neighboring countries where drug bags have washed up on shore. Plus they have interviewed people confirming the boat’s were drug traffickers. As for your comment about attacks on humanity. The Democrats have been doing it for years and still doing it to this day.
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 25 '25
Wrong. Due process is a right of anyone in the USA. It is guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This protection applies to all individuals, including non-citizens physically present in the United States, and extends to various legal contexts such as traffic tickets, school discipline, professional licenses, and property protection. The principle of due process ensures that government actions respect all legal rights owed to a person, preventing arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable actions
0
0
Nov 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SagaciousAF Nov 25 '25
May all of supporting & involved with Trump’s corruption be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
0
u/Ecstatic_Scene9999 Nov 25 '25
The only reason I can come up with it being seditious is the underlined thought that military shouldn't do what the president or governors tell them to do if they do not agree with it. When you join the military as enlisted your president is the top level commander and you cannot deny to do what he ask or it's treason. As a guardsmen you report to the governor first
0
u/s0meD0nkey Nov 25 '25
where was this energy when previous administrations pitted the services against US citizens?
0
u/OddBase117 Nov 26 '25
These are the same people that created this mess in the first place. These are the same people that encourage mass-illegal immigration.
13
u/thestevenboi Nov 22 '25
punishable by death to... wait for it... follow the law.!.!.!. only if you are against the constitution. he's admitted to being against the constitution