this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
183 points (100.0% liked)

World News

40136 readers
439 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 day ago (4 children)

They are completely allowed to refuse these orders but choose to follow them. Congress has not approved this war so it is 100% illegal. No soldier should carry out orders given illegally.

[–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

This is still a pointless retort imo, doesn't matter if the orders were legal or not, you are allowed no NEED to fire at aggressive foreign militaries surrounding you if you want to defend yourself from a military assault.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

allowed to refuse these orders

In practice this rarely happens because of how difficult and uncertain the process is. Especially for those at lower levels

This video has some historical examples

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TwPLqGkYnBA&pp=0gcJCcQBo7VqN5tD

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That's not how that works. An order can be legal whether these attacks are legal, extra-legal, or illegal (they're extra-legal or legal). Congress has given the president power to perform some military actions without their approval. Their approval is needed to declare war, and they're required to be notified of the president taking certain actions (which they weren't at the start, making what the president did illegal, but not the soldiers).

This isn't defending the actions. This is only a statement of fact, letting you and others know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you use this saying. Yes, they can (in fact, they must) refuse illegal orders, but that doesn't mean what you're implying.