This guy…
“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
Miller has a face that makes it clear he has a micro penis
WRONG.
He is entirely penis.
Its literally your job to refuse an illegal order as a US service member.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, but the order is not always so clearly unlawful. You pretty much do need a lawyer on standby to challenge violations of Posse Comitatus. It is the servicemember’s duty to refuse to conduct domestic law enforcement activities like deportation, for example, but they can be required to support those same activities in other ways.
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
