Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Aside from the horrific public messaging of telling the entire world that Americans opposing illegal orders could/should be put to death, it does pose a fun thought experiment about how much individual control there should be from service members, because it's hard to really do anything if every self-empowered clown out there has to ask a hundred questions with a lawyer present before they're willing to follow orders.
It would or should be a moot point IF all the orders were legal.
Our service members should never have to question whether an order is legal. The very thought of this gives me the red ass.
By raising your right hand you’re committing to take part in stuff that could get sketchy. Even daily ops are riddle with potential dangers, just by the nature of the business. So you count on leadership to make informed, rational decisions, even if those decisions can put you in harms’ way.
Taking out combatants, even those with seemingly no countermeasures, is part & parcel of the gig. Where messages get mixed is in the definition of “combatant”. The Navy and Coast Guard routinely intercept vessels suspected of drug trafficking, but the primary goal is apprehension, not destruction, of those on board. Plus those naval activities take place much closer to US shores, and seldom (if ever) require an aircraft carrier.
So the question remains: what are we doing, and what is the desired result? Trump’s rhetoric has become increasingly aggressive, even against members of his own party. Destroying small boats seems rather pointless, and it does not improve US credibility. It comes across as someone chest-pounding as the walls are closing in.
There's currently 188 US flagged merchant ships...
https://www.maritime.dot.gov/data-reports/us-flag-fleet-dashboard
Fishing and recreational vessels are not included, but are considered US flagged vessels, even if they aren't flying a flag.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Now we know.😉
Agree it should. The US is a little different from other countries in that we have no process to ensure anything is legal before rolling it out. Some other countries run new laws through a constitutional court before they reach the public, but we dump new laws on the public and then let them test them out, often through significant suffering. We're doing some executive bumper bowling testing the durometer on those guardrails, so the legality of things isn't super cut and dried anymore. The line between traitor and patriot hasn't been this murky in my lifetime.
Also I looked up Norwich and man I love the midwest. Straight up small town USA stuff is the best, I'm jelly!
My point is that no service member should ever have to worry about whether the orders he is carrying out are "legal". That is why integrity is probably the most important factor in our military. I guess if right or wrong no longer matters then nothing else does either.
One of judge advocates roles is to act as legal advisers to command, to ensure orders are legal, but they have been purged...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/24/people-are-very-scared-trump-administration-purge-of-jag-officers-raises-legal-ethical-fears.html
Lol...this a big town compared to where I started out. 1st thru 6th grade in one room, 7-8-9 in another. The principal taught high school. Most years not enough kids for any sports. Wasn't unusual for a few kids to ride their horses to school. Man I'm old.🤔
Commander in Chief has no integrity at all. That does not bode well for those down the chain.
Having zero integrity is a requirement for that position and has been for a very long time. Integrity is means for instant disqualification for any politician.
I assume you answer is no…
I don't understand what that even means, they have presented no evidence, what more do you want? If they had irrefutable evidence that these boats were carrying drugs destined for America then it sure seems to me and most other logical people that they would present that evidence rather than continue to take heat from countries all over the world for performing multiple illegal executions.
The hypocrisy of this topic is absolutely wild to see. Tons of you guys have been on a crusade for years here saying that we should never take our government's word for anything (and rightfully so, as they've proven time and time again), but this time it's all different because your guy is the one making the calls and clearly he could never do something outside of our best interest, right? It's ridiculous. I've supported a lot of things Trump has done but this is completely out of line.
It’s simple, really. You made a definitive statement that they have no evidence. Just because you haven’t been privy to the evidence doesn’t mean it’s not there.
I don’t know what evidence they have or don’t have, either, but I’m not the one saying I know.
My next question would be with these brilliant dems saying they should disobey illegal orders, does every enlisted man or woman in the military have the knowledge to discern what is or isn’t legal? Do they always know what evidence is or is not there, or are they just supposed to guess? Do they have a Jag on speed dial to counsel them for every order? And what are the repercussions if they are wrong. Lives could be at stake either way.
I don’t know the answers, and I don’t think most that are commenting do either. Including the six Dems stirring this up.
"Do they have a Jag on speed dial to counsel them for every order?"
No the Jags have been purged.
I certainly don't mean to stir any pots. If any illegal orders are being issued...the issuers should be nailed...not the grunt who trusts his superiors.
I agree 100%. I never served, but that is the understanding I always had. If your superior gives you an order you do it. If not you get in trouble. If you do and the order is illegal, it’s on him.
Therefore, the Dems encouraging not obeying orders are meddling where they shouldn’t.
It's on him and anybody who carries out his order.
https://www.militarydefense.com/military-personnel-must-know-the-limits-of-lawful-orders/
Pit Row
You’re referring to an advisory opinion, and it’s in violation of Art. III S2 of the constitution. Courts require ripeness. There are several requirements for this, but the general principal is that real parties must be in an active controversy. Courts like this rule for a few reasons, but the big ones are that it prevents judges from legislating from the bench and it keeps them from speculating about how a law may hypothetically effect those subject to it. This is an important check against the court’s power.
Also interesting that you mention the confusion between traitors and patriots. You might enjoy reading about the Prize Cases. It’s a collection of 4 Supreme Court decisions from the civil war. They’re about Lincoln’s power to commit acts of war against the south without a congressional declaration of war. It’s a worthwhile read if you’re at all into American history. Also relevant to this discussion.
Seems like everything has a significant downside, like a court making bad interpretations based on hypothetical speculation, versus unconstitutional law making its way into the public sphere and some poor chap losing their freedom finding out about the implementation of illegal laws. The 2a folks have been hit hard there over the years. Further complicated by states trying to take precedence over federal legislation. It's a real maze out there full of punitive pitfalls, not really the coolest way to treat our people.
Man I wish that were true. If a service member follows an order that is illegal per US or International law...they are just as liable as the person issuing the order.
The "Dems" that are urging military folks to not follow any illegal orders are all prior military or intelligence officers. Maybe they have political motivations (probably) but it's still solid advice.
How does someone disprove the existence of something that hasn’t been proven to exist in the first place?
What if it’s one of those situations where if you ask 2 different lawyers, you’d get 3 opinions?
Thats what I’m talking about. In the heat of the battle. Is the grunt supposed to know in any situation what is or is not legal?
That puts the poor grunt in a no win situation fast.
. All I did was ask him if he had evidence to back up his statement.
Exactly. I think this is aimed more at the commanders who actually give or pass down orders. Problem is...the UCMJ and US law don't make a distinction between the commander and the grunt.
The military only works when the grunt has total trust in their leadership. Just because following the law makes a leaders objective more onerous doesn't give them the right to break the law.
The rule we always had was if you weren't sure you ran it up the chain, but we were also given training on what was ok and what wasn't plus officers had more training again. The type of situation where things are as blurred as you ask tend not to happen in normal combat situations, when you're being shot at it's pretty clear what's required of you. Where it can get blurry is in situations like we had in Bosnia on peacekeeping missions where you have a lot of civilian interaction and unclear or endlessly changing RoE.
The defense of "I was only following orders" hasn't been a thing in international law since 1945, for good reasons.
The guy is definitely a bigot.
Thanks to both PB and Twigster.
I think I’ll stick to my day job.
Good intel there. Most military personnel, deployed or at home, want to end each day on a high note. And that note means you didn’t F anything up. Doing the job correctly has a higher value than confirming its legality.
These jobs inflict severe penalties for f’ing up, meaning leadership doesn’t want their people distracted by erroneous challenges. Like questioning whether your actions are in violation of US/Intl laws.
“Why am I doing this?” is a question many have asked themselves. Sometimes it’s a moral conflict, others times its job satisfaction. At NO time should the question concern potential prosecution.
It’s human nature to believe (or want to believe) our leaders are acting in the nation’s best interest. But the details can be complicated, especially when you’re at arms’ length from the situation.
I’m all for ending drug trafficking and particularly the production of fentanyl and meth and crack which I personally see as far more harmful not only to the user but also to society in general compared to heroin and coke. But this is most definitely not that. This is politics and like everything politicians do in the name of politics, it is most definitely not being done with the best interests of American citizens in mind.
No consideration or dialogue from our honorable leaders as to why so much of society is so hopeless and so aimless that it desires such an appetite for destruction? No desire and not even an inkling of willingness to address the underlying issues at hand?
We really need to stop arguing amongst ourselves and force our honorable leaders and institutions to be accountable to our needs!
Any actions which hinges on violence is always wrong because it will never work, because what is going on here isn’t meant be right! Who cares if it’s legal.
Post a reply to: Democrats urge military to disobey orders.....