Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 04:38PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017772#Comment_124017772

That's crap. To say that an individual soldier isn't in a position to determine the legality of an order, does more to condescend towards the rank and file, than anything that the politicians in question did. They're not speaking down to service members, they're acting to reassure them in the face of an Administration that has shat all over the law at every turn. Reminding them of their oaths of fealty, to the Consistution rather than the President, is not a simple act of political theatre. It is timely and necessary in a period where we teeter on the edge of a dictatorship. You'll remember GEN. Milley deliberately ensuring his staff understood the protocols and law surrounding nuclear launch authorities in the previous Administration. Was he out of line too?

Just following orders didn't work as a defense at Nuremberg, and doesn't work now. If not for soldiers questioning the legality of orders, there would've been more dead civilians at My Lai. An entire philosophy during GWOT was built on the concept of the strategic corporal, of placing trust and responsibility on the men in the field to make those judgements.

Manic Moran · 25-11-2025 04:43PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017642#Comment_124017642

If it actually were a mirror image... But the note is wrong, the image is not reversed. (Even if you don’t know that medals are worn on the left side in the US, looking at the numerals will give that away)

/r/navy has confirmed that the medals are out of order.

Penn · 25-11-2025 04:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017841#Comment_124017841

He should surely be put to death then, which if the President ordered, would have to be followed and not questioned, lest you find yourself stuck in the middle of a moral argument.

breezy1985 · 25-11-2025 04:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017841#Comment_124017841

Still wrong to use recalling him as a threat.

Manic Moran · 25-11-2025 04:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017826#Comment_124017826

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the US Manual for Courts Martial before making definitive statements about what does and does not constitute a defense for the offense of refusal to obey an order. See also the section about who is qualified to make a final determination of lawfulness of that order.

Now apply that information to the troops on the ground whose primary goal is likely to stay out of jail. It is not a matter of general principle, it is a matter of “when I am given this specific order, am I to obey it”

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 04:54PM

Failed O-3 talking down to decorated O-6. Hilarious.

Jelle1880 · 25-11-2025 04:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017841#Comment_124017841

The nr. 2 on the top row makes it look mirrored.

The only issue seems to be that they are in the incorrect order, the bottom row should be second from the top but that doesn't take away from the message.

Kegseth should be the last to criticise Kelly given the difference in ranks when they both served, the fact he felt the need to put Captain in quotation marks says enough. Maybe they can compare medals or achievements.

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 05:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017872#Comment_124017872

I've asked you multiple times who is the deciding authority as to whether an order should be considered legal or not. Your oath is to defend the Constitution. Saying that JAG officers and judges can resolve such issues post fact, isn't going to be much help when competent, non-partisan officials are replaced by eager lackeys to the Administration looking to abuse its power. If you willingly participate in actions that are clearly in violation of it, then you are guilty of treason, whether or not you are just following orders.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/military/ucmj-articles-lawful-unlawful-orders-duty-to-obey-224fde

As mentioned here, there is no clarity in the UCMJ towards resolving that question in the moment. It basically amounts to a shoot em all and let God judge them approach. It's rather too late for those illegally killed in the recent airstrikes on boats in the Caribbean, for a judge down the line to declare them illegal acts.

Manic Moran · 25-11-2025 05:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017900#Comment_124017900

If they were illegally killed, you mean. Unless there was a ruling I'm not aware of. They may have been. But neither of us can say definitively.

As you observe, a judge has not yet made a determination of lawfulness. JAGs give advice. They are better placed to give advice than anyone else, but are not a determining authority themselves, even the Chief JAG of the US military. Rank and file certainly are not.

I suggested you read the MCM, not an AI-generated fact-checking website. The one gives chapter and verse to include the standards under which a serviceman is to be judged and the presumptions which apply. I've read it. The other does not (Though I have noticed that if you dig around a bit in the links, it actually does come close).

https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2024%20MCM%20files/MCM%20(2024%20ed)%20(2024_01_02)%20(adjusted%20bookmarks).pdf

Stanley 1 · 25-11-2025 05:17PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017826#Comment_124017826

I went to the new movie lastnight, Nuremberg, last night and thought it was very good, the last 15' when the "doctor" attending Goering goes on to write a book about him, is engaged in a radio interviewer about the defeat of Fascism,he makes his point emphatically the Fascism is not defeated by the ending of WW11, rather it is simmering below the surface and will come again in a country - not Germany but a longer time lapse between WW1 and WW11.

It screams Trump/MAGA.

ilkhanid · 25-11-2025 05:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017826#Comment_124017826

Knowing what's illegal and what is not doesn't require a degree in military law in most cases. Unless you're a befuddled rube from deepest Arkansas, a sociopath or a mindless automaton, then you'll know that "Fire into that crowd", "Put those people up against the wall and shoot", "Beat the prisoner with your rifle butt", "Target the truck with the Red Cross on the roof" and "take all the goods and food in the house" are crimes. It's not, eh, rocket science.

valoren · 25-11-2025 05:27PM

It sums up the asshole mentality that is part of the MAGA DNA i.e. You take all that Kelly has done to serve his country and he makes one mistake with a picture and he gets hanged for that while the rest is ignored because that's all such cretins can use against him. I don't mean hanging him literally although I'm not so sure about that. Just ask Mike Pence.

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 05:40PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017937#Comment_124017937

Your response highlights exactly the issue. It's a civilian led military. If the President issues an illegal order, who is there to countermand it? Congress can notionally do so, but again likely only after the fact. In order to obey your oath, you must be prepared and willing to make a judgement in the moment. Trump wanted the military to shoot demonstrators in his first term. Had he ordered it, and been refused, would the service members be subject to prosecution? You would likely argue yes, and given SCOTUS has deemed the President has carte blanche to do as he pleases, any justification thrown out by the President would carry weight.

Wolf359f · 25-11-2025 05:44PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017958#Comment_124017958

I wonder if it's as simple as a federal court ruling that the deployment of troops to a city is illegal/unlawful so any troops following an order to deploy to said city would be following an illegal/unlawful order?

Manic Moran · 25-11-2025 05:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017998#Comment_124017998

They may have been subject to prosecution, but that doesn't mean that the refusal wouldn't meet the standards which would result in an acquittal. One might question whether or not military prosecutors, faced with such a case, would even bring it to trial in the first place. The question is hyperbolic. To my knowledge, Trump never actually ordered anyone to shoot protestors. If he did, the order certainly never made it down the chain, and no prosecutions resulted.

That is no different to other instances in law. If I shoot someone, I am subject to prosecution. If I shoot someone in self defense, the DA may well conclude that the chances of conviction are so low that it's not worth bringing to trial because at first blush it's a case of a covered defense. Or maybe they'll conclude that there's a case to answer, bring it to trial anyway, and the trial will conclude the actions lawful. But if I shot someone, and the trial says I was wrong (even if I felt entirely justified at the time), I'm in a heap of trouble.

Everything hinges on an individual case by case basis.

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 05:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124018017#Comment_124018017

Indeed, but failing to act in the hope that something might be found unConstitutional down the line, is a failure to honour one's oath. If you reasonably believe an order to be illegal, it's your duty to refuse to follow it.

The politicians were supporting a message to service members that they must choose in the moment to disobey an illegal order. The code implicitly places the burden of judgement on every service member to consider the legality of an order. The fact that runs in conflict with the requirement to obey a lawful order is besides the point.

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 06:01PM

In the vein of this conversation, exhibit A on why what the politicians spoke about is important.

https://newrepublic.com/post/203628/white-house-declares-trump-orders-military-legal

Dr Turk Turkelton · 25-11-2025 06:02PM

The part that once again I can't understand is how a decorated American hero in Captain Mike Kelly can be undermined by a yellow bellied, draft dodging "Captain" Bonespurs.

Americans and especially the military should be telling the coward President to stfu and treat the war hero with respect.

It actually baffles me.

Stanley 1 · 25-11-2025 06:06PM

Melania all togged out, heading for a week away aboard the "Lolita Express", round about the time when first she saw the love light in Donald's eyes.

She certainly knew her own assets and had eyes for Donald's guided by Epstein, was she just a golddigger or a plant by Epstein to keep an eye on his good friend, Donald.

Manic Moran · 25-11-2025 06:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124018034#Comment_124018034

I’ll highlight an important issue.

”If you reasonably believe an order to be illegal, it's your duty to refuse to follow it.”

That is not the standard under which servicemen are held, by regulation. You may feel a moral obligation to refuse, but that is not the legal standard.

Maybe it should be, you may hold that opinion. I would disagree with it for practical reasons. But our personal opinions are irrelevant, because the manual lays it out and until it is changed, it holds.

If a soldier who doesn’t know better and holds to your “reasonably believe” standard (because few people seem to be willing to delve into the details), and refuses an order, two things are going to happen. (1) The order does not get performed, and (2) The soldier risks being charged and there is an effective presumption of guilt by the very fact that the refusal occurred. It is up to the accused to prove that he is not guilty of that offense by showing how he meets the standard for the defense against that offense.

Patrick2010 · 25-11-2025 06:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124018062#Comment_124018062

Not to mention being abused by an alcoholic ex Fox News host with minimal army experience

Having said that I can see MMs point. Realistically the only order a serving soldier could disobey is if ordered to shoot peaceful US protesters. I can’t see how shooting at foreign boats in international waters with no evidence they are a threat to America is legal but that would be a difficult one to disobey

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 06:45PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124018098#Comment_124018098

It's not a question of moral beliefs, it's a subjective view of the legality of a situation. It can only be as such, when presented with an order to take an action can be inferred to be illegal. A service member must follow an order, unless such order is illegal. A military judge being the authority to determine such. Said military judge not being present at the time of an incident, means the entire basis of argument is built on a foundation of sand.

Whether they are subsequently prosecuted for the act depends on the interpretation of others after the fact. Given that lives and perhaps the continuation of the democratic government may hang in the balance of such individual choices, it's not much use suggesting service members punt the issue down the road and hope for the best.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/norm-defying-military-disobedience-in-a-norm-defying-presidency--what-role-does-the-ucmj-play

There's a long discussion of the ideas pertaining to the conversation here.

Glencarraig · 25-11-2025 06:58PM

Droopy Donny pardoned two turkeys today….their names?……….Waddle and Gobble………..sums up Droopy perfectly !!

everlast75 · 25-11-2025 07:15PM

Dancing on the head of a pin stuff.

Trump said, in plain English, that people who remind soldiers that they should disobey illegal orders, should be hanged.

Full. F*cking. Stop.

There's no getting away from that.

And there's absolutely no equivalent on the other side of this. To say otherwise is manifestly bullsh1t.

eire4 · 25-11-2025 07:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124018295#Comment_124018295

But the threads resident apologist for the US president MM still finds a way to excuse the inexcusable.

scuba8 · 25-11-2025 07:46PM

This could be part of the reason they spoke out. That is an awful lot of experience, at the top level of of the force, to be discarded. Are the replacements loyal to the constitution or to trump?

charlie14 · 25-11-2025 07:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124017937#Comment_124017937

Human Rights Watch have no problem calling those deaths what they were, extrajudicial killings. Neither it seems did Admiral Alvin Holsey appointed Commander U.S. Southern Command November 2024.

A few day`s after the 5th strike on a Venezuela less than a tear into his tenure Admiral Holsey during a Pentagon meeting with Dan Caine, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Hegseth offered his resignation and confirmed a week later that he was leaving the U.S. Navy on the 12th. Dec 2025.

Screenshot 2025-11-25 at 18-33-13 BBC.webp (WEBP Image 800 × 817 pixels) — Scaled (78%).png

To data the U.S. Navy has carried out 21 strikes on boats killing 83 people with absolutely no evidence showing any of these boats were transporting drugs. In the first strike that killed 11 people, Trump claimed that fentanyl could be clearly seen floating on the surface after this killing yet there hasn`t been a single piece of evidence from any of those 21 extrajudicial killings.

Are you saying that the U.S. Navy is acting as cowboy judges, juries and executioners because it could not stop and search any of those boats, or even retrieving a single piece of evidence after they killed all on board when doing body counts doesn`t seem to be a problem for them.

Manic Moran · 25-11-2025 07:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124018191#Comment_124018191

That is a much better overview of the issues than found on the fact-checking site, as I would expect from a legal-oriented site. I particularly like how they clearly state (contrary to a number of posts on this thread) in one of the linked articles that the Supreme Court's opinion about Presidential immunity holds no relevance to the lawfulness of any orders he may give.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-the-military-disobey-orders-in-the-seal-team-6-hypothetical

I probably should bookmark that one for future reference. It'll doubtless come back as a comment in the future.

I very much follow this quoted position, and I find that it is one which many others on this site are lambasting me for holding it, confusing my support for the authority to do something with the moral or policy merits of doing it.

Interestingly, your link poses some issues which it believes should be fixed to provide a better outcome (and proposes those fixes). Until those fixes are incorporated, however, it's hypothetical, and the regulations as currently exist do provide some additional guidance to assist with actions to be carried out given the situation of there being a 'subjective view of the legality of the situation.' After all, no soldier wants to be in a position where he's going "I believe this is unlawful, but I'm not so sure of it that I'm going to want to risk myself on the matter."

First, there is the situation where laws are so blatantly unlawful that even Ilkhanid's rube from Arkansas understands that they are unlawful. Those, for obvious reasons, do not require a judge to opine on their unlawfulness. Follow that order, and on your own head be it (Think the My Lai example posted earlier, or "Use SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival"). Note your link quotes the standard of "know the order to be unlawful", not "believe" or "reasonably believe". Or, in other words, if he refuses to follow such an order, as it is his duty to do, he is legally safe.

For issues like the domestic deployments or the drug-running boats (or most anything else the US military officially does as policy) which are causing the current political discourse, it doesn't make it to that standard. Even as we speak, the legalities are being hashed out in court. Thus if the soldier follows the order, even if it turns out after the fact that the order was unlawful, he is legally safe.

The converse is true if the soldier refuses an order reasonably believing it was unlawful, and it turned out he got it wrong. He is not legally safe, the order is presumed to be lawful unless found to be otherwise by a judge. If he guessed wrong, he will be convicted.

So whilst the theory is fine, "disobey an order you believe to be unlawful" does work if you guess right, the practical reality is that the military operates under "disobey an order you know to be unlawful". It's possible to do the former and get off. Lt Ehren Watada comes to mind, though he got away under a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct, not for acquittal of the offense. It is, however, extremely risky, and negatively affects both the operation of the military and the people doing the refusal.

nachouser · 25-11-2025 08:02PM

The last few pages basically answer the question; "Why does the US not recognise the International Criminal Court?"

AbusesToilets · 25-11-2025 08:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124018388#Comment_124018388

When the issue pertains to questions of Constitutionality, things are rather murkier. Determining if a killing is legally justified is more straightforward than whether the President is pursuing actions and issuing orders to usurp one of the co-equal branches of government. Say for example, the President declares a national emergency on the week of the upcoming mid term elections, in various swing states. Orders the deployment of the military, under the auspices of the Insurrection Act. Such an action would likely be a naked attempt to disrupt and influence the outcome of an election. That's a very real possibility, and even if a commander of a unit in such a situation is at pains to ensure his troops act in an orderly fashion, the potential for seriously damaging outcomes would be high. We've already seen the impact that the ultimately benign deployments of troops to date have caused.

There are sufficient historical parallels in the rise of the Nazis, when the central civilian power undermined the independence of the military as it consolidated its authoritarian control over the country. I can't imagine a more timely reminder than the one put forth by those politicians, if for no other reason than it provokes conversation around the idea.

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

Comments