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
Didn't they already downplay the whole insurrection thing? Hard to take these clowns seriously.
Our insurrection was invading the capital with the intention of killing the Vice President!
Your insurrection is telling the army it is okay to refuse to attack US citizens!
Its literally your job to refuse an illegal order as a US service member.
Sadly, only sort of: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TwPLqGkYnBA
I mean I've worked directly with ACLU lawyers on this matter, and have organized with the original members of the appeal for redress.
I went so far as to organize this panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsrwIJcxYWY&t=529s
Where we brought on lawyers, historians, other veterans, and political commentators, all of whom had specific experience (as in, had been involved in a military court in some manner) around the relationship around disobeying illegal orders.
And yeah. I stand by the point I made. As a service member you are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
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.
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
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
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.
The rules are there to ensure the proles are the ones always getting the short end of the stick.
Oh yeah, dad did say that he wasn't taught anything like that until he went to OTS.
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.
I carry a little glimmer of satisfaction knowing that as soon as this administration crumbles, be it political fallout from Epstein or Trump just finally keeling over one day, Miller is most likely going to become the fall-guy for a massive portion of the wrongs committed by the administration. Rightfully too.
But the point is, he's not liked. He is disgusting and off-putting and the only reason he has any station or power at all is because he learned how to wormtongue Trump and has no qualms about acting as sycophantic as he acts fascist.
Nobody likes working with him, nobody wants to be around him, and everyone is happy to let him do the talking because he seems to think he's invincible and will never face consequences. He doesn't fit into modern politics, it's just that we're surrounded by so much other nonsense daily that he seems to just blend into the background. When Trump's power wanes, he will stick out like a swollen, festering, sore thumb and the sharks will smell blood.
This. I don't think Miller knows just how much his own side doesn't like him. He does have people over him with more power who keep him around because he's useful, and they protect him because he's useful, but once he's outlived his usefulness, they'll wash their hands of him.
On a related note: South Park is back to form with true satire by definition
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.
An admission that orders issued soon will be illegal
Miller fails to recognize the Nuremberg Trials, Following illegal orders is inexcusable in a courtroom.
That mouth looks like it does the same things as Trump’s mouth
Rapes women and children or the sucking presidential dick?
Yes.
"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.
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.
"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."
Always lovely how on Fox news you can twist words, twist reality, outright lie, it's all fine, because as they claim themselves z they're not a news channel but an entertainment channel. Even sued the government to be able to lie...
And these magats just eat it up like cupcakes
Good soldiers know they are fighting for the constitution and the american citizenry. I don't think we need to be worried about Stefan Mueller for too much longer.
Miller has a face that makes it clear he has a micro penis
Mhm. Resting dickless face.
I challenged Stephen Miller to a fist fight, but that chicken fucker didn’t respond.
"Rebellion!" Screams the chronic angry man who is giving illegal orders that would be treason, regardless of who is giving the order.
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).
They need to make Miller sit down in an austere interrogation room with only a recording of Charlie Kirk talking about how executions need to be televised and force children to watch.
And over that audio recording an AI video of... well... whatever is it you imagine it should be.
After all this is over and Stephen Miller is placed under arrest or whatever else it may be, I will celebrate in the streets.
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.
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.
