Quiet piggy!You guys are, you’re crying all over the place over this silly little issue. Non-issue.
Quiet piggy!You guys are, you’re crying all over the place over this silly little issue. Non-issue.
Triggered?Quiet piggy!
this perfectly illustrates my point on 'vagueness' and how those saying to refuse to follow unlawful orders are being completely irresponsible.I’d have to know more details, It sounds to me like they could be prosecuted, but maybe should not be prosecuted, based on the situation.
Triggered?

Definitely triggered! Why is that guy crying, is that you?
The law always has its vague areas. Telling the troops the truth is never wrong.this perfectly illustrates my point on 'vagueness' and how those saying to refuse to follow unlawful orders are being completely irresponsible.
I never said it was wrong. I said it was completely irresponsible to say something that vague without providing legal context. It's classic despotism, telling the grunts and low ranking soldiers not do do certain things without giving a metric on what that is. It allows those that issued the idiotically vague recommendations without taking any responsibility for negative consequences experienced by that grunt/low ranking soldier. Case in point, The College Park, Ga arrest of Charles Reed. Some dumbass bitch accused Mr. Reed of home invasion/breaking and entering, then assaulting her and running away. 9 months later, with almost zero investigation, police secured an arrest warrant for Mr. Reed. He went to the police station to turn himself in when he found out about the warrant. Mr Reed has been a paraplegic in a wheelchair for 25 years............so when the arresting officer tried to explain this to his supervisor, the supervisor couldn't bother to get up from his lunch and simply said 'it's a ruse to avoid going to jail', basically ordering his subordinate to make the arrest. Guess who got fired and who kept his job with no reprimand????????The law always has its vague areas. Telling the troops the truth is never wrong.
Waaaaaa, so do you support a criminal investigation?I never said it was wrong. I said it was completely irresponsible to say something that vague without providing legal context. It's classic despotism, telling the grunts and low ranking soldiers not do do certain things without giving a metric on what that is. It allows those that issued the idiotically vague recommendations without taking any responsibility for negative consequences experienced by that grunt/low ranking soldier. Case in point, The College Park, Ga arrest of Charles Reed. Some dumbass bitch accused Mr. Reed of home invasion/breaking and entering, then assaulting her and running away. 9 months later, with almost zero investigation, police secured an arrest warrant for Mr. Reed. He went to the police station to turn himself in when he found out about the warrant. Mr Reed has been a paraplegic in a wheelchair for 25 years............so when the arresting officer tried to explain this to his supervisor, the supervisor couldn't bother to get up from his lunch and simply said 'it's a ruse to avoid going to jail', basically ordering his subordinate to make the arrest. Guess who got fired and who kept his job with no reprimand????????
In other words, stop being a black and white dumbass and look at all situations objectively to see the stupid shit you're supporting.
^Dumbfuck denies SCOTUS.You're the stupid fuck that doesn't understand that the founders did not create a restricted federal government, then hand over the power to define those restrictions to that very government, which is why 'shall not be infringed' means NO FUCKING REGULATIONS, you bonafide moron of the highest caliber
NO, I do not support a criminal investigation, unless they are only trying to show complete negligence.Waaaaaa, so do you support a criminal investigation?
If it’s a responsible thing or not, is a legit discussion…. However it cannot be had in the shadow of TACO’s launching a criminal investigation and calling it sedition.
SCOTUS usurped the power to interpret the Constitution from we the people. you're the moron worshipping SCOTUS, at least until its a decision you disagree with, making you the biggest idiot of all.^Dumbfuck denies SCOTUS.
How do you know, are you psychotic... err, psychic, or something? What purpose was intended in sending this message. Those producing it have no examples of Trump or the administration issuing clearly illegal orders. Questionable ones don't rise to "illegal."“Now, IF that’s the case…”
Nope, fucktard, that’s NOT the case.
Fucking cultist moron.
Good job for finding an article from Fox News.Military lawyers are saying what I'm saying.
Troops risk court-martial if they follow Democrats’ ‘illegal orders’ advice, former military lawyers warn
![]()
Troops risk court-martial if they follow Democrats’ ‘illegal orders’ advice, former military lawyers warn
While the lawmakers behind the video framed the appeal as a defense of the Constitution, military legal codes make clear that refusing orders can carry devastating penalties.www.foxnews.com
![]()
Just follow orders or obey the law? What US troops told us about refusing illegal commands
A majority of service members understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders.theconversation.com
So what orders are being issued by Trump that are illegal?Akin to Abu Ghraib and the Malay massacre.
Does anyone here disagree American troops should be required to follow illegal orders?
Disobeying an unlawful order is required by law!
Already done.The Democrats are implying, because they specifically included statements about the current administration and Trump in their message, that Trump and his administration are issuing illegal orders and that troops should refuse to follow those orders.
Now, if that's the case, and you likely think that, it shouldn't be hard to for you to point to one or two of Trump's blatantly illegal orders that he's issued. In fact, you state so above in the highlighted portion of your post. So, list a couple of Trump's illegal orders to the military that they should refuse to obey.
they also never bothered to give any guidance on what is, and isn't, legal and illegalAlready done.
They never said to disobey legal orders.
Cry more, Trumpper.
predictable response from lying leftists trying to justify the unjustifiable when getting caught lying. Reminding the troops of their obligations is nowhere close to sedition.
Who is asking lawmakers to tell the troops and CIA what they already know and are trained for?Telling troops that they are required to refuse illegal orders is stirring up friction between officers and enlisted.
Incredibly stupid position.
Your false outrage is silly.
Cry more, Trumper!
Cry more, Trumpper!
