Trump calls for arrest of Dem lawmakers who urged the military not to follow illegal orders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are really stupid statements. Like how are you supposed to know what an illegal order is? You should not be doing blanket things like that. You should be stating things like. If you have concerns about orders please seek legal counsel. It'd be like me saying hey. Be careful and do stuff but we're not sure it's legal but use your own judgment. Please come on now

YOU may not know what an illegal order is but the military are trained on this (and may be smarter than you.)

Dear God, I hope they are smarter than this poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The claim that these missions are illegal is simply incorrect. The administration has formally designated the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and has notified Congress that the United States is in an armed conflict with them. That combination places operations against cartel targets under established counterterrorism and armed-conflict authorities, the same legal framework used for years against other designated groups. Orders issued within that framework are presumed lawful because they come with rules of engagement, statutory backing, and legal vetting. Personal disagreement with policy does not make an order unlawful, and nothing in these directives qualifies as clearly illegal. Under current law, these operations fall squarely within authorized military action.

^I don’t think whoever wrote this was an average DC urban mom (or dad).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't get to decide; if you are uncomfortable executing the mission, you should resign.

That's literally contrary to military training.

Military training does not give service members the freedom to pick and choose missions based on personal comfort. It teaches them to follow all lawful orders and execute assigned missions even when they disagree with the policy behind them. The only time refusal is allowed is when an order is clearly unlawful, and counter-cartel missions issued under a lawful command authority do not meet that threshold. If someone feels morally or personally unable to carry out a lawful mission, the correct professional option is to request reassignment or separate from service. That is completely consistent with military standards and avoids undermining the chain of command.

What is the point of this discussion? You are simply agreeing with the Democrats in the video. No one may issue or follow illegal orders. Why is this controversial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another 80/20 topic that Democrats are on the wrong side of.

Can you explain how supporting the US constitution is wrong?

Can you point to illegal orders? Not feels, actual illegality.

Who was the admiral who just resigned after voicing concern that blowing up small boats in the ocean was illegal?
And the Senate just voted against a Dem bill calling for them to review these actions. Literally refusing to do their oversight duty when it comes to actions claimed to have military justification when the President and DoD also proclaims their intent to continue such actions. What a bunch of yellow bellied sniveling cowards they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think every officer is very mindful they swore an oath to the Constitution. This president's desire to use American troops domestically and potentially start stupid unnecessary wars in Venezuela has every officer thinking about what is the right thing to do.

The claim that these missions are illegal is simply incorrect. The administration has formally designated the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and has notified Congress that the United States is in an armed conflict with them. That combination places operations against cartel targets under established counterterrorism and armed-conflict authorities, the same legal framework used for years against other designated groups. Orders issued within that framework are presumed lawful because they come with rules of engagement, statutory backing, and legal vetting. Personal disagreement with policy does not make an order unlawful, and nothing in these directives qualifies as clearly illegal. Under current law, these operations fall squarely within authorized military action.

The Congressional authorization re: foreign terrorists was specifically in connection with 9/11:
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons

What, we were supposed to send JD to Venezuela instead of Iraq???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He then also said to hang them.

But did he say "shut up piggy" to them? We are the world's laughing stock with the President we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's treason to use political status to strongly influence the military to disobey orders

Is reminding members of the military that their oath is to the constitution disobeying orders or otherwise treason?

military personnel are not a lawyers

Neither are you. Does that give you the right to break the law? Are only lawyers obligated to obey laws?

[Anonymous]

Some of these people can be called up to active duty and charged with conduct unbecoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Illegal is not how you feel at the moment. There s a protocol in the military being told to ignore. This is what the dems want, a breakdown of society and chaos.

The lawmakers in the video didn’t say any specific orders were illegal. The military is told as a standard part of training that they must refuse to carry out illegal orders. There is no reason for the President to be upset about this unless he believes his orders are illegal.

If the soldiers have already been trained to not follow an illegal order then why did the politicians feel the need to make a public service announcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes if the Democrats are telling the military to disobey orders because it's Trump that is not good. That is treason. They should at least say please use your Jag advisors. If you are concerned about illegality, they should not be doing blanketed requests to derelict their duty and disobey orders. The Democrats need to be put in some type of penalized status. Perhaps a tribunal that they need to be sent out?

if you actually watch the video that is the subject of this thread, all they are saying is that they swore an oath to the constitution. Y'all reading much more into it and projecting. I wonder why.

But why have a video at all?

[Anonymous]

Even Sen. Fetterman found his conscience on this one.

Fetterman calls Trump posts ‘dangerous,’ ‘deeply wrong’
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fetterman-calls-trump-posts-dangerous-deeply-wrong/ar-AA1QQqvz?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=6920079e037f4dc89216719bee6552ae&ei=10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The claim that these missions are illegal is simply incorrect. The administration has formally designated the major cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and has notified Congress that the United States is in an armed conflict with them. That combination places operations against cartel targets under established counterterrorism and armed-conflict authorities, the same legal framework used for years against other designated groups. Orders issued within that framework are presumed lawful because they come with rules of engagement, statutory backing, and legal vetting. Personal disagreement with policy does not make an order unlawful, and nothing in these directives qualifies as clearly illegal. Under current law, these operations fall squarely within authorized military action.

^I don’t think whoever wrote this was an average DC urban mom (or dad).

What they’re presenting however is questionable. They present everything as if at no time there have been questions over the legitimacy of these actions. There have been questions of legality in the scenarios above all along the way by courts. The post is misleading and classic DcUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol Elissa Slotkin is butt hurt for not being the dod secretary however they shouldn't be encouraging troops to disobey orders. Illegal is not for them to decide

They didn’t call for them to “disobey orders”, they reminded them not to obey “illegal orders.” They REMINDED them of THEIR OATH and their rules they MUST FOLLOW.

Unlike you, the troops are not confused by this. It’s a very big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "free speech" president is calling for the six Democratic lawmakers who urged the military not to follow illegal orders to be arrested, and he’s reposting replies which state they should be hanged and calling them terrorists.

Background:

Half a dozen members of Congress who previously served in the military or intelligence community are urging service members and intelligence officials to disobey illegal orders that might be issued by President Donald Trump’s administration.

In a video posted on X Tuesday, Democratic lawmakers Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Sen. Mark Kelly, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Rep. Chris Deluzio and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan said the “threats to our Constitution” are coming “from right here at home,” and repeatedly urged the military and intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.” “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law, or our Constitution,” they said. “Know that we have your back… don’t give up the ship.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/19/politics/democratic-lawmakers-urge-troops-to-disobey-illegal-orders

Here is the original X post video featuring the lawmakers.

And here are copies of Trump's original post and the posts he reposted calling for these politicians to be hung.

Finally, here is a link to the policy Trump signed soon after taking office titled "RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/

You’d think that the other members of Congress would see how their dangerously insane leader might turn on them, too.

Trust me, they all see it. That's why Lisa Murkoswki said "We're all afraid" of Trump's retribution, which is how he keeps them in line. But his power is starting to slip, as evidenced by the Rep. lawmakers like MTG who ignored his orders to vote against the bill to release the Epstein files.

MTG recently said she is facing threats due to Trump's criticism of her.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who was once one of President Donald Trump’s most vocal supporters, said Saturday that she’s facing threats after the president criticized her on social media. “I am now being contacted by private security firms with warnings for my safety as a hot bed of threats against me are being fueled and egged on by the most powerful man in the world. The man I supported and helped get elected,” Greene wrote on X on Saturday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-threats-feud-donald-trump-rcna244119

It is in their power to do something about it and they are choosing not to. They are abdicating their responsibility and betraying their country. They fear the orange toddler more than they care about this country or - unbelievably - their own future. They will all go down with him. I will never forgive these traitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes if the Democrats are telling the military to disobey orders because it's Trump that is not good. That is treason. They should at least say please use your Jag advisors. If you are concerned about illegality, they should not be doing blanketed requests to derelict their duty and disobey orders. The Democrats need to be put in some type of penalized status. Perhaps a tribunal that they need to be sent out?

if you actually watch the video that is the subject of this thread, all they are saying is that they swore an oath to the constitution. Y'all reading much more into it and projecting. I wonder why.

But why have a video at all?

I heard about this a few days ago, this is a transcript but well worth a read.

“Calls to organizations like The Orders Project, which provides free legal advice to military personnel, are on the rise from staff officers involved in planning the boat strikes, as are calls to a separate hot line from National Guard personnel concerned about domestic deployments to American cities, and even calls expressing concerns of complicity and a possible genocide in Gaza by virtue of U.S. weapons sent to Israel, signaling heightened concern from within the U.S. government that the U.S. military is exposing those who serve to legal harm.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/military-personnel-seek-legal-advice-on-whether-trump-ordered-missions-are-lawful