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?

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:He then also said to hang them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)