Would you obey an illegal or unconstitutional order?

2020-12-09T14:39:35-05:00

What are your professional and personal views on the right and the duty of active and retired military to disobey illegal or unconstitutional orders? (Ref. UCMJ, Articles 90, 91, 92; and the Fourth Geneva Convention.)

For instance, in the event a sitting U.S. President loses an election in the electoral college, and as a means to stay in office declares martial law or invokes the 1807 Insurrection Act, should you obey such an order? Would you individually be willing to comply?

Let's have a frank and friendly discussion on this vital topic....

e.g., https://www.witf.org/2020/06/02/president-trump-says-hell-deploy-military-to-states-if-they-dont-stop-violent-protests/

President Trump says he’ll deploy military to states if they don’t stop violent protests | WITF

During the remarks, Trump declared himself “a law-and-order president.”

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 2:54 PM

2020-12-09T14:54:24-05:00

Not a chance in hell. It is God and then country. And I swore an oath to protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic. That oath does not end with or exclude our nations leadership. If my personal salvation and my nation's freedom are in jeopardy I will not second guess doing what is legally, ethically and morally right.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 2:58 PM

2020-12-09T14:58:29-05:00

Nope, sure didn't either time, and then I was standing in front of a desk at Attention, explaining Myself to the Shiny on the Shoulder, and getting My hand slapped for not having any tact.
BTW; When the MMRB said I'd had enough at 10.5 years, I had 3 knots on My GCR.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 2:58 PM

2020-12-09T14:58:56-05:00

The purpose of this post is to stir the pot. Political posts should be banned from RallyPoint.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Dec 9 at 2020 3:02 PM

2020-12-09T15:02:24-05:00

You are duty-bound by your oath not to do so.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 3:02 PM

2020-12-09T15:02:30-05:00

You want to stir the pot don't you?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 3:23 PM

2020-12-09T15:23:49-05:00

I'm going to recount what the JAG Attorney told us during a briefing at OCS in 2010.

She said that if you *believe* any order is unlawful, unethical, or unconstitutional, ask the person who issued the order to restate the order, and explain his/her intent of the order. If you still believe the order to be unlawful, unethical, or unconstitutional, you then ask for the order to be given in writing, and signed by the person issuing the order. Regardless of whether or not you get it in writing, you verbally object to the order, and your basis for doing so. You gather witness names, the date, time, and location for later investigation, and then you obey the order. Once in a place and time you can report the incident, you do, giving all the details.

By not obeying the order, you can be charged with insubordination, mutiny, and whatever else a prosecutor wishes to charge you with, especially if your opinion was wrong.

That was the LEGAL ADVICE given to us by a JAG Attorney.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 3:32 PM

2020-12-09T15:32:03-05:00

Not just no but F* no I would never follow an illegal, unethical, immoral or unconstitutional order. Ever. No one should because our oath is to support and defend the Constitution and obey LAWFUL orders.

Also your article is from June...so...it really doesn't apply to him losing the election or anything election related.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 3:35 PM

2020-12-09T15:35:16-05:00

Although I like where your head is at, but come on man, "Let's have a frank and friendly discussion on this vital topic...."

Seriously???

You know the answer. This is nothing but a stick to the hornets' nest for no other reason then to see factions fighting each other on US soil

Response by SPC Kevin Ford made Dec 9 at 2020 3:44 PM

2020-12-09T15:44:04-05:00

Hard question. A service member has a duty not to obey an unlawful order. Having said that, such a service member had better be very, very, very (plus a bunch more verys) sure they are on solid footing.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 9 at 2020 3:44 PM

2020-12-09T15:44:14-05:00

I will protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic means protecting the constitution against a rogue presidents and generals as well. I consider Trump a rogue president now.

Response by SSgt Max Gonzales made Dec 9 at 2020 3:49 PM

2020-12-09T15:49:26-05:00

In the present case,we know this person has flawed view of what has happened. I would not follow him at any cost. Those that choose to do so are entitled to their opinions. Being a sore loser, just shows how much he wanted to follow in Hitlers steps. We have never had a dictator and most agree, never will. Our constitution guarantees that freedom is for all not just the rich.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Dec 9 at 2020 3:52 PM

2020-12-09T15:52:01-05:00

Response by SGT James Hammons made Dec 9 at 2020 4:57 PM

2020-12-09T16:57:07-05:00

Nope

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2020 5:03 PM

2020-12-09T17:03:19-05:00

I've heard of whatabout'ism, but whatif'ism is frustrated cargo. SLOP (s**t left on pier). Anyone that has taken any Oath knows the answer.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Dec 9 at 2020 5:36 PM

2020-12-09T17:36:59-05:00

Sit back and watch.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Dec 9 at 2020 6:35 PM

2020-12-09T18:35:40-05:00

The answer to the general question is obvious: NO.

The problem is the scenario presented fails a basic civics test. The Electoral College elects the president. However, there are two additional facts that are being ignored:
1. If the EC cannot determine a winner, the vote goes to the House. This has already occurred twice in our history.
2. Even after the EC determines a winner, the House must certify the election. This is true of EVERY presidential election.

Stop listening to the lying media. There is no "president elect" until the House convenes IN JANUARY.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Dec 9 at 2020 6:58 PM

2020-12-09T18:58:50-05:00

Not biting.

Response by Maj John Bell made Dec 9 at 2020 7:09 PM

2020-12-09T19:09:06-05:00

Silly question. Insulting in fact.

Response by LTJG Richard Bruce made Dec 9 at 2020 8:44 PM

2020-12-09T20:44:53-05:00

A President declaring martial law or invoking the Insurrection Act is not unconstitutional. If a new President is sworn in, the the old President is no longer the President and cannot issue any military order. Don't understand the problem here.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Dec 9 at 2020 10:47 PM

2020-12-09T22:47:06-05:00

Someone who would like to do illegal & unconstitutional stuff?

Response by MSG Greg Kelly made Dec 10 at 2020 7:27 AM

2020-12-10T07:27:17-05:00

no I would not. But if the example of how todays military acts the way I see some behave on this site is how the winds of change have turned the military of today. We may be in trouble. We can only hope that there are enough people in the military today that have read what they are to defend The constitution

Response by MSgt Steve Sweeney made Dec 10 at 2020 7:50 AM

2020-12-10T07:50:31-05:00

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 10 at 2020 10:02 AM

2020-12-10T10:02:56-05:00

Question 2: Are you remotely qualified to determine what is or is not an illegal or unconstitutional order?
BLUF: By the time a mission order reaches you, it's already been vetted by an ocean of military lawyers. The odds that they all missed something you caught are pretty slim.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2020 2:34 PM

2020-12-10T14:34:10-05:00

This is so far from reality folks.

When Governors start retaining their NG and combat capabilities we should start to be concerned.

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made Dec 10 at 2020 6:52 PM

2020-12-10T18:52:36-05:00

The answer is no..however, given the state of the elections and their "irregularities" it might be necessary to ensure the integrity of the election process. If the integrity is lost, the country is lost. Remember Honest Abe did it to keep the union together during the Civil War. Not so much different here...

Response by TSgt Don Dollinger made Dec 15 at 2020 2:57 PM

2020-12-15T14:57:48-05:00

Obviously posted by someone who has never served. It shows your total ignorance of the integrity of the Patriots serving in your US Military. Trust me that the US military will be on the right side of history. Now take your anti Trump rhetoric somewhere else like Alt.conspiracytheories.com.

Response by WO1 Dean Casey made Dec 15 at 2020 7:39 PM

2020-12-15T19:39:42-05:00

That is what the Nuremberg and My Li trials where about.

Response by SSgt Benjamin Rice made Dec 16 at 2020 3:10 PM

2020-12-16T15:10:24-05:00

I think the real question here is whether people believe there were shenanigans going on in some states with regards to the election(s). I honestly don't think this is even a question but I digress. Only once you answer this question can you begin answering the OP. HOW do you answer this question? Looking at both sides of the coin here, on one hand you have a POTUS that states the election results were fraudulent and that the Democratic party are basically insurrectionists. If this is the case then an order for Martial Law is probably justified. If however the election was fair and honest and the outcome was correct, then an order for Martial Law WOULD be illegal.

Response by SMSgt Bob Wilson made Dec 17 at 2020 1:00 AM

2020-12-17T01:00:11-05:00

Hypothetically, your question has not validity. As military, your are under the UCMJ which is based on "...the Constitution..." with liberal [not political] interpretation of the Bill of Rights. As a retiree, unless you comment an offense on a government installation or you work for the DOD, the Constitution is in effect via state laws [for the most part]. Who is going to determine if an "ORDER" is illegal? Oh, I know, the guard at the gate or the mess hall cook. Get real.

Response by LTC Raymond Buenteo made Dec 20 at 2020 11:50 AM

2020-12-20T11:50:05-05:00

This is a media hype. But, I would not put this action past the Democrats. The Dems witch hunt went on for 3.5 years based o. Lies and events they created. So no I would never support such an action. The constitution is focus of our support not the men and women who manipulate interpretations for the sole purpose of extending powers to political parties and political agendas.

Response by LTC Raymond Buenteo made Dec 20 at 2020 3:45 PM

2020-12-20T15:45:01-05:00

So will this order be labeled so?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 20 at 2020 4:24 PM

2020-12-20T16:24:22-05:00

The Trump camp has been mulling over ordering martial law which I doubt will happen, but if he does, I expect the generals to stand down and not follow his orders.

Response by SGT Donald Croswhite made Dec 21 at 2020 3:16 AM

2020-12-21T03:16:47-05:00

Nope

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 21 at 2020 12:54 PM

2020-12-21T12:54:12-05:00

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2020 2:01 PM

2020-12-23T14:01:25-05:00

It is incumbent upon the individual Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Airman, or officer to determine whether the order is illegal or unconstitutional (based on his own knowledge of applicable law and of the Constitution), and whether the order was morally right (for instance, if disobeying it would cause a non-negligible degree of harm relative to its benefits). So the short answer to the basic question is that it depends on the SM and on the order he's been given.

As to your "for instance," which is very specific (and partisan) to current U.S. politics, it is neither clear that such a scenario is or would be unconstitutional or illegal, because of the current issues regarding the election itself to-date. Furthermore, your WITF article is from June and has nothing whatever to do with your first example. Would it be illegal for the President, as CinC, to "deploy military to ... stop violent protests," as the headline says? It might be if it was federal troops. More likely would be a federalizing of the Guard to address the emergency, as Ike did when Democrats sought to forcefully prevent school integration in '57. They were STATE guardsmen, stood up in defiance of and opposition to their own STATE's governor.
Was Ike out of line?
Should the Guard told DC to pound sand?
Was following that order the right thing to do?

The regs say that "commissioned officers are obligated to follow lawful orders irrespective of their personal opinions on the matter." But the law itself is what he must apply to know if orders are lawful or not.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 23 at 2020 5:41 PM

2020-12-23T17:41:49-05:00

The soldiers and officers at the Mai Lai massacre said they were just following orders. It does not take a rocket scientist to determine massacring civilians is a crime against humanity. If I am expected to do a wrong then I will say no. Fire me, court martial me. If I am told to commit a war crime then I suppose I do not belong in that kind of army. There has to be requisite professionalism. We are not only warriors but we also must have the attribute of scholars who know what is right or wrong, when to use compassion, when it is appropriate to use the types of force in different situations.

There are many lines in my life that I will not cross.

I am done pontificating and pretending to be a moral man.

Response by PO3 Paul Scheel made Dec 23 at 2020 9:52 PM

2020-12-23T21:52:02-05:00

Our President Top Joint Cheifs
Should all be charged and removed. And if or when the president declares martial law
Every Branch Needs To Stand Down and Protect America
We all took that Oath and i will stand behind it until i die
I, (NAME), 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
Right now We Have A President
That had broken his oath and is on a fine line of an UNLAWFUL ORDER

Response by PO3 Paul Scheel made Dec 23 at 2020 9:56 PM

2020-12-23T21:56:27-05:00

The very minute he issues that order he will be a Enemy of the State and should be arrested on site secert service will have to stand down and president arrested vp assumes the presidency speaker of the house moves into the vice president seat until jan 20,2021

Response by CPT Keith Whitter made Dec 30 at 2020 2:26 PM

2020-12-30T14:26:51-05:00

Judah appears to be well versed in the UCMJ. My recommendation is to next study the US Constitution and Bills of Rights. The election process is pretty clearly stated in Article II, Section I, Paragraph II. In simple terms it is the various state legislators who have the plenary rights to control federal elections by their states. A state's executive branch does not have the legal right to make changes to laws delineated by the legislatures. Doing so constitutes a breach of the law. A legislature that allows the executive branch to usurp their power and make these changes outside of their various state and the Federal Constitution is weak, ineffective and will eventually be handled by the citizens of that state. The other governing law is the 12th Amendment. It is definitely worth everyone's time to study or at least review these documents created by our Founding Fathers.

Response by SFC Dwight Beaver made Jan 3 at 2021 10:12 PM

2021-01-03T22:12:58-05:00

Seems to me that main stream media has been making this same spin since the election

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Jan 9 at 2021 3:49 PM

2021-01-09T15:49:27-05:00

No.

Response by Cpl Robert Russell Payne made Jan 10 at 2021 1:21 PM

2021-01-10T13:21:34-05:00

Wouldn't obey an illegal order or unlawful order but the US military isn't bound by the Constitution so the answer to that part of the question would obviously be yes. WDE!

Response by LCpl Michael Cappello made Jan 10 at 2021 8:10 PM

2021-01-10T20:10:02-05:00

Please allow me to respond with a question of my own. At what point do you consider yourself to be an expert on the Constitution and on Constitutional legality ? When did the military become one of the three branches of the Federal Government? We are oath-bound to obey all lawful orders of those appointed over us. The tricky part is knowing if such orders are lawful or not. It is NOT our job to interpret whether or not the implementation of he 1807 Insurrection Act is legal. Same with Martial Law. That is the job of the Judiciary branch. Until such time as the legality has been refuted or confirmed by the Supreme Court, we are obligated to do our damn jobs in a professional military manner.

Response by MSgt Allen Chandler made Jan 11 at 2021 11:18 AM

2021-01-11T11:18:50-05:00

If I knew the order What is unlawful / Illegal And Dangerous to the common good I definitely would not obey it. I answer it that way because If my boss told me to go next-door and steal a I need pin from somebody else so we could get the job done I just might do it. But you're obviously talking aboutA real world situation todayAnd there is a real fearThat what you're talking about might happen. I believe / And hope That there are enough good people at the Pentagon in all the walls of the military That he just couldn't do this.

Response by SPC Edvard Svanoe made Feb 25 at 2021 12:21 PM

2021-02-25T12:21:24-05:00

If an order is demonstrably illegal then every service member is honor bound to disobey it. If there is no way to determine legality one way or another then it's dealers choice. Just keep in mind that either way you will be held accountable for YOUR actions, most assuredly if you harm American Citizens based upon your choices. Where is "the line" when dealing with tyrannical political dictates and illegal actions (criminal) to maintain or usurp political authority? Read up on the Battle of Athens, 1946.

Response by CPT Tim Iund made Feb 26 at 2021 11:06 PM

2021-02-26T23:06:47-05:00

One the first things I learned in the UCMJ course of study in Army ROTC 45 years ago was the right to refuse an unlawful or immoral order. The situation referred to in class was what led to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. Other lesser examples were also covered. The point is that if you are sure it’s unlawful or immoral, refuse the order. But be advised that you will probably face Court Martial to prove it, unless the person giving the order backs down or rescinds the order.

Response by SSG Ryan Rink made Mar 6 at 2021 6:25 PM

2021-03-06T18:25:52-05:00

Would that be an order like harris coming for your guns or sleepy placing mandatory double masks mandates on the American people, is that the kind of orders that you will protect?
I'm just asking, cause I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats they don't give a shit about you or me. And media is going to portray it the best way that the can to make money from it while taking money from whichever is paying the most.
You want to find out if I will or will not, come onto my property.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Mar 7 at 2021 2:35 PM

2021-03-07T14:35:44-05:00

Vital topic? No US President has ever given such an order and the only people who are bringing up this ridiculous premise are know-nothing, liberal ass clowns, so why is it a vital topic?

Response by SPC Martin Meyer made Mar 11 at 2021 7:25 PM

2021-03-11T19:25:50-05:00

Obviously someone is trying to make a political statement here pointed at President Trump. First what constitutes an unlawful order? Is the order one that violates our God Given Rights Guaranteed by Our Constitution? It does not matter who gives the order it is whether or not the order is Constitutional. It does not matter who the Commander in Chief is at the time. If the order is given and is not in violation of our Constitution who decides whether it is "Lawful or Unlawful"? Is it something that the Supreme Court will need to decide on?
We are a Constitutional Republic and our Constitution is the Law of the Land and has served us well over 2 centuries plus.
So in my opinion if the order does not violate our Constitutional Rights then we must presume it to be a lawful order until decided otherwise.
This is a slippery slope we are dealing with here.

Response by SSgt Michael Bowen made Mar 14 at 2021 4:44 PM

2021-03-14T16:44:13-04:00

Only if there is definitive proof That the election itself was a fraud in order to take power and control of the government . because That would be an insurrection from within . But i Naively think there would be a true and fair investigation and if evidence was allowed to be presented and it was proven fraud did in fact undermine the election the legislature would invalidate the election tighten and plug the holes and hold another True and fair election . Eliminating as much fraud as possible for the good of the Country and it's voting system . And Not ignore the fraud to protect a false impression of a secured process . Because that would only serve the interest of the people committing the fraud . And encourage more of the same in the future . Because with out consequences you will surely get more of the same and it will only get worse . But then whether or not it was Constitutional or not would be questionable . based on opinion or ideology And up to the courts to decide .

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2021 5:15 PM

2021-03-14T17:15:42-04:00

Okay, who is Judah Freed and why is he on RP without a status indicator?

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Mar 14 at 2021 8:23 PM

2021-03-14T20:23:49-04:00

Response by MSgt Mayo Sifford made Mar 15 at 2021 3:21 AM

2021-03-15T03:21:59-04:00

I believe, given the circumstances, I would obey the order and seek justification later. Blatently disobeying a direct order can get one shot. I would not comply with an order to fire, for example, on unarmed civilians, without a convincing explanation. Much depends on the circumstances.

Response by Sgt Jude Eschete made Mar 20 at 2021 11:08 PM

2021-03-20T23:08:29-04:00

This isn't even a discussion. It's black and white. It is every servicemember's duty to not obey illegal orders. Especially an order that is such a blatant violation of the constitution. Even if I suffered consequences of it from leadership who agreed with the order, at least I know I did the right thing. We swear an oath to the constitution, not the president, and we swear to carry out and obey lawful orders.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Mar 21 at 2021 6:00 PM

2021-03-21T18:00:27-04:00

All of us took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It didn't say anything about enforcing the will of Congress, the courts, or even the president of the United States. Remember the oath you took and stop posting this bullshit.

Response by AA Loreen Silvarahawk made Mar 26 at 2021 3:39 PM

2021-03-26T15:39:11-04:00

Simply put - No!

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2021 7:49 PM

2021-03-26T19:49:17-04:00

If you plan on disobeying an order because you believe it's illegal or unconstitutional...be sure you really understand the law or the constitution. What you personally think won't really matter if you can't back it up with precedent, references, and specifics of how you tried to obey as much of the order as possible without crossing the line. On the other hand, you are responsible if you knowingly obey an unlawful order.

Response by CWO3 Robert Fong made Mar 28 at 2021 12:05 PM

2021-03-28T12:05:02-04:00

Well, the first thing we need to clear off the deck is the issue of the Insurrection Act. That Act is constitutional and may be invoked by the President. Now, is the Insurrection Act being properly applied? In my rarefied judicial and constitutional knowledge, I believe that the President would be in error. Now, the military is controlled by the civilian leadership not the other way around. It is not our job to second guess decisions for obvious reasons. Martial Law is a tool that would be used when the entire nation has lost all governmental control and law and order across the nation. Again, wrong tool. We are now placed in a decision conundrum that soldiers faced in 1860 when General Robert E. Lee and others faced the same question. Why do I say this? Because we will have to make a decision that asks each of us to decide was the election fair or not, and was the President given all avenues of appeal or not. If you side with the President, then you are a "Confederate" so-to-speak. If you believe the President got fair treatment, then you are a Unionist. Note: This is why President Trump did not exercise either option because it would be the start of another Civil War. Now, when considering other orders given by a superior knowing they are illegal I'd have to disobey and inform the next in the chain of my decision.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2021 1:43 PM

2021-04-11T13:43:24-04:00

UCMJ Articles 90, 91, 92 require obedience to all lawful orders. Not only should an unlawful order not be obeyed, obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders. "I was following orders," is not a defense. All that being said, you better be on the right side of the issue.

Response by LTJG Roy Shine made Apr 12 at 2021 11:39 AM

2021-04-12T11:39:39-04:00

Our oaths were/are to defend the Constitution.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 19 at 2021 7:27 AM

2021-04-19T07:27:58-04:00

Judah Freed you must be part of the woke, cancel up yours culture trying to divide this nation.

Response by MSgt Bill Rentz made Apr 20 at 2021 11:12 AM

2021-04-20T11:12:37-04:00

No. Just ask the Nazis how that argument worked out for them.

Response by SFC James Corona made Apr 23 at 2021 2:57 PM

2021-04-23T14:57:27-04:00

The Veteran or Service member who posted this ALREADY KNOWS THE ANSWER! Don't throw grenades in packed audiences.

Response by LtCol Bruce Janis made May 12 at 2021 12:07 AM

2021-05-12T00:07:35-04:00

No more than if the President. Told you to violate the Constitution, say the 2nd Amendment. That the answer you were looking for?

Response by PO1 John Hudson made May 13 at 2021 11:21 AM

2021-05-13T11:21:13-04:00

As a retiree. Had that occurred during my active service I would have relied on the direction of my superiors. If I found their actions also outside the realm of constitutional authority, I would put my objection in writing up the chain of command. Hopefully our system of checks and will protect us. Our democracy is fragile and we as soldiers must never take side. We have an oath that guides us. We don’t need sea lawyers telling us what we should do or think.

Response by LtCol Dennis Ivan made May 13 at 2021 7:10 PM

2021-05-13T19:10:11-04:00

"Civilian supporter"... what are you doing here? Take your sh1t back to some little kiddy hippie site you usually play on.

Response by SP5 Jay Molyneaux made May 16 at 2021 2:05 PM

2021-05-16T14:05:16-04:00

This is an interesting question. It is very complex and way above the pay grade of a 20 year old soldier in my mind. I will try to give you the answer a 76 year old VN vet who is lawyer about what I would have done as a 20 year old private in a combat zone. If I sincerely believed it was an illegal order -shoot a child - I would refuse on behalf of myself and my men. On your facts, I would probably ask my CO what his view was and go with what he said while trying to figure out what was really happening. That is the best I can do for you. And it is my honest opinion.

Response by SFC Howard Holmes made May 17 at 2021 8:34 PM

2021-05-17T20:34:54-04:00

It seems like the Constitution of the U.S. is recently been quite convoluted. People getting fired from jobs for saying things that were not violent, threatening, or dangerous. I do remember in 1996, an Army Specialist (or PFC) was found guilty and sent to prison for refusing to serve under a United Nations Command, where there was no U.S. military leadership present. The soldier, Timothy New refused to serve under a U.N. Commander, was court martialed and lost. This was the beginning of the my faith in the military. At that point I had 17 years in, and it was quite miserable for me. Nowhere in our Oath of Enlistment does it read that we must serve and pay allegiance to any foreign command. Yes, for the good of cooperation, I would, but to be ordered to serve under the U.N. with no U.S. leadership - HELL NO!!! So, even understanding what is and isn't a lawful order is getting more difficult. ROE's are plain out right ridiculous. I do not know what is happening to our great military. Clinton started using it as a social experiment, Obama stepped it up, and NOW, if you are or were a Trump supporter you are being pointed out and investigated. The officers in the military need to go back and read and watch some of the history on the Rise of Hitler. In fact, try starting off with Bill O'Reilly's, Killing the SS. Then take a good hard look at what is going on in our military and our society.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made May 30 at 2021 5:27 PM

2021-05-30T17:27:23-04:00

President Trump on Monday threatened to deploy the U.S. military to cities or states that don’t take “necessary” actions to halt violent protests, saying the armed forces will “quickly solve the problem for them.”

Then Congress orders the armed forces to be deployed to halt violent protests (1/6).

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made May 30 at 2021 5:29 PM

2021-05-30T17:29:18-04:00

For instance, a sitting US President orders that racism, its actual practice, be taught in the Armed Forces. It's to be taught as right, correct, and to be implemented immediately.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made May 30 at 2021 5:50 PM

2021-05-30T17:50:15-04:00

It is entirely possible that, in 2024, Donald Trump could win another Presidential Election (President Grover Cleveland did something similar in the 1892 Presidential Election). The Democrats now cry "Stolen Election!" and, in January of 2025, as a means to stay in office declares martial law or invokes the 1807 Insurrection Act.

Now what will you do?

Response by LCpl Kenny Kellar made May 31 at 2021 3:15 AM

2021-05-31T03:15:25-04:00

It's easy to say I wouldn't. That was pounded into us. But, that requires time to consider and judge if the order is legal. Without that time, I probably would, because I trusted the person giving the order. Building trust through the ranks is underappreciated. I worked under one officer who I trusted so thoroughly, I only questioned how, not whether

Response by SGT Frank Hewes made May 31 at 2021 3:27 AM

2021-05-31T03:27:35-04:00

In general no. In fact I have refused a direct order from a Colonel as an E-4, and was not reprimanded for it. Was not an illegal order, but he wanted me to reinstate the license of a soldier that backed a 2.5 ton into me and a humvee then left without even sticking his head out the window. I reported the incident straight to company command when it happened. And when the company commander told me to issue the guy a new license a few months later, I told him that he could either find someone else to do the job, or find someone else to issue the license because after that hit and run I would not be issuing him a license for any wheeled vehicle. No idea which option he took.

Response by CDR Bob Fuller made May 31 at 2021 7:00 AM

2021-05-31T07:00:13-04:00

First, every service member has taken an oath to follow LAWFUL orders. We also have an obligation not to follow unlawful orders. Examples: Lawful-“Report aboard ship prior to the expiration of liberty. Liberty expires at 0100 local time”; Unlawful- “March those POWs ahead of the platoon to clear the minefield”. A service members reply should be “Sir, I believe you’ve issued an unlawful order (to march POWs thru a minefield) and I am obligated to not follow/obey this unlawful order”.
Second, in the question asked (deploy forces to quell civil disturbances/violent protests), this can be a lawful order as long as the Posse Comitatus Act (which limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States) is complied with. This act dates to 1878, updated in 1958 & 1981. Nation Guard units under state control can be used within their respective state to perform as above (quell civil disturbances/violent protests).
Third, IMHO, protecting federal property from riot/arson, where the local law enforcement has been withdrawn or ordered to not protect is probably a reasonable/lawful use of federal forces (lawful order as long as Posse Comitatus Act is complied with); stopping a ballot count because the results are disagreeable (IMHO) is probably an unlawful order.

Response by Cpl Brian Escobar made May 31 at 2021 12:29 PM

2021-05-31T12:29:53-04:00

An illegal and unconstitutional law is an immoral one. Therefore under the Authority of Almighty God we are no longer bound to obey it! For when all is said and done it will be you and I individually in who will stand before our Heavenly Father in judgement for obeying mans immorality and wickedness.

Response by SGT John Baker made May 31 at 2021 12:59 PM

2021-05-31T12:59:11-04:00

The primary thing that holds us together as a nation and a people is our Consitution and our Bill of Rights. The downside to that is from almost day one of it being ratified, our assorted politicians have been trying to find ways around our Consitution, even though they swore an oath to uphold and defend it.
I believe active duty personnel should think real hard before they disobey an order from a superior officer, no matter what reason they might have. The Constitution will not protect them should they disobey an order, at least not before damage has been done to their career. Upper flag ranks have a little more leeway. We are a nation of law, millions of laws. How can any military personnel be aware of the thousands of laws that might negate whatever reason they might have for disobeying a direct order?

Response by SFC George “Bones” Small made May 31 at 2021 1:04 PM

2021-05-31T13:04:17-04:00

Not, but I think more clarity needs to be shed on what “looses an election” means. Mainly was the election fairly and correctly administered in all areas according to established election laws without any election tampering or non-citizen voting being counted in the election results?

Response by Cpl Douglas Johnson made May 31 at 2021 2:27 PM

2021-05-31T14:27:51-04:00

Leave it to a civilian to bring politics into the military. Take the stick out of the pot and quit stirring.

Response by SN Trevor Sanchez made May 31 at 2021 4:52 PM

2021-05-31T16:52:46-04:00

I swore my oath to this country and the Constitution, not to any sitting President. If the President gives an order that is Not Constitutional, we have an obligation to the people and the Constitution to disobey it.

Response by LCpl Paul Williams made May 31 at 2021 8:23 PM

2021-05-31T20:23:45-04:00

Yes

Response by CPO Scott Langhoff made May 31 at 2021 8:50 PM

2021-05-31T20:50:22-04:00

Methinks some Democratic Communist is trying to smoke out the real Patriots…

Response by Capt Loren Morgan made May 31 at 2021 9:57 PM

2021-05-31T21:57:03-04:00

Never. Cost me promotions before, wouldn't change anything.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 31 at 2021 10:52 PM

2021-05-31T22:52:32-04:00

Everyone will say "no", but recent events indicate half of you would do so with a smile...

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 31 at 2021 10:54 PM

2021-05-31T22:54:23-04:00

Everyone will say "no", but recent events indicate half of you would do so with a smile...

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 31 at 2021 10:57 PM

2021-05-31T22:57:29-04:00

Everyone will say "no", but recent events indicate half of you would do so with a smile...

Response by SGT Jerry Hoy made Jun 1 at 2021 6:52 PM

2021-06-01T18:52:05-04:00

Maybe the question should be, would you obey a president if it's found through an election audit that he really didn't win?? Then what??

Response by LTC Seford Olsen made Jun 1 at 2021 8:23 PM

2021-06-01T20:23:19-04:00

It is my duty as an American service member to ignore, not follow, and report such an order.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2021 9:44 PM

2021-06-01T21:44:04-04:00

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2021 9:46 PM

2021-06-01T21:46:27-04:00

How about the act of a sitting President ordering military personnel to unlawfully entering hoe to confiscate firearms? Would anyone one here disobey that?

Response by SSG Michael Vance made Jun 2 at 2021 5:48 PM

2021-06-02T17:48:50-04:00

Illegal orders are clear to even those giving them, that is why they are generally given in questionable or contentious situations; just one man's opinion. They is no legal recourse to be taken against a person refusing an illegal order, THAT is why they are even pressed

Response by SPC Will Thorson made Jun 3 at 2021 9:29 AM

2021-06-03T09:29:22-04:00

If someone's does, you better have solid proof or evidence backing you up. Unlawful orders are incredibly rare. I've seen it once in 1094. My battalion was getting ready to deploy and a medic refused to go. He said it was an unlawful order because it was the UN in command. Well...he ended up not going to Macedonia, instead he went home, chaptered out. I think today it would be hard to actually have unlawful orders. There is so much micro managing in the military that someone giving that unlawful order probably would not take it and question it in private to the officer or higher ranked NCO.

Response by SFC James Corona made Jun 3 at 2021 9:58 AM

2021-06-03T09:58:57-04:00

General Mark A. Milley set the correct precedence toward alleged election fraud. His strong leadership and verbal allegiance statements allowed the new administration to transition without a military coup.

Response by Sgt Greg Nowark made Jun 3 at 2021 10:58 AM

2021-06-03T10:58:11-04:00

Yes, of course, (but for instance "as a means to ..." IS prejudicial) MIKENEW.COM for the result of Pres Clinton's unconstitutional order in 1995.

Response by CPL Larry Bezemer made Jun 3 at 2021 8:56 PM

2021-06-03T20:56:01-04:00

Really, YOU HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP...got it!

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2021 9:03 PM

2021-06-03T21:03:02-04:00

I want to start by saying I don't consider myself a Trump 'supporter', and I'm not a lawyer, but to answer the question..

There's variables involved..

First observe the question is framed with the presumption the order is 'unlawful', as opposed to a 'real' assessment of a very dynamic situation, where those military personnel must determine if they're being targeted with military-style IO disinformation propaganda, in an effort to destabilize and demoralize their own official operations, or any individual inclinations to rally support.

In our case,
The sitting President had multiple reasonable questions about the legitimacy of the 'election', and from the outside, watching the 'counting' stop for a couple days, and then suddenly move in favor of the DNC, a party that recently went to court to justify they had no responsibility to be objective or fair, to their own 'voters'.. It seems reasonable, a legitimate government Congress or really any investigative structure, would want to investigate.

That didn't happen.

We the People, were hit with 'news' that the President didn't have the right, to declare martial law or invoke the Insurrection Act.. but is that correct? *If, there was election fraud, and it was going without challenge, what exactly *are the options available to ensure there is opportunity to investigate fully?

'but they failed every court challenge..'

Sure, but look closer at what that actually 'means'.. In the couple months between the 'election' and January 6th, it's supposed every single possible piece of evidence, is in hand and available, without any official assistance from our substantial investigative institutions.

Each court situation was unique, but examples include GA., the 'judge' was related to a political adversary and ought to have recused herself immediately. Still others used technicalities to refuse to even review the evidence.. and the MSM loved the 'judge' who made a mockery of legitimate demands that 'observers' actually be close enough to 'observe'..

In this 'election' where We were told for months to expect a landslide 15% beat for Biden, the *actual (apparent) numbers in some key states, was *less than, 1%.
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/arizona/
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/georgia/
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/pennsylvania/

The best that corporate MSM could come up with, was 'no significant evidence of election fraud' on repeat.. (See 'Command Message'.. then ask, who's in 'command'?)
For example, Washington Post, who recently (*after the damage was done), printed a retraction for false information used against Trump regarding his Georgia phone calls..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/14/there-is-not-has-not-been-any-credible-evidence-significant-fraud-2020-election/

Thinking people, would be demanding the President's allegations be investigated, for example, the truck driver delivering ballots across state lines in a manner that didn't allow for provable chain of custody.

Then there's the 'recounts'.. 'Recounting doesn't do anything when the 'votes' being counted, were already corrupted. (here's where I was drawing comparisons to the Joseph Stalin quote about '..who counts the votes', and within two days, MSM was using it, in reference to the President..)

We were inundated with MSM telling us, everything the President said, was 'false', before they themselves had a hold of what complaints even existed.. To this day, every single MSM report will begin with 'Trump's false claims'.. (see famous Nazi propaganda lesson quote)
Not one corporate MSM source, including those traditionally conservative leaning like FOX, even entertained the possibility the electoral count could have been falsified.

Then our sitting President, and many of his supporters, were publicly discredited without evidence, (or through straw man arguments such that because a person espoused Q-spiracy crap, any *other arguments they held must be equally invalid).

Corporate sabotage even literally silenced both the People, and the President. (so much for the the People's 'right' to dissent. That alone, is a violence-worthy corporate slap in the face to any American claiming to value Civil 'Rights' like freedom of speech, in any way.. and no, the, 'they're not government, and not subject to the Constitution', is horse crap to any thinking person.

Possibly the most vulgar admission (so far) of coordinated efforts against the President (and by extension, all of Us), was the TIME story here https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

By the time January 6th came:
-corporate MSM 'declared' Biden the 'winner' despite no official investigation of any claims of possible election fraud.

-there was zero official government effort to investigate the President's claims. (although MSM was prepared, with allegations that the 'President's DOJ' wasn't impartial.. even though by all examples, it's true, the DOJ was biased, but *against, the President.)

-congress intended to conduct the Electoral College 'count' regardless of the President's claims, and regardless of the petition of untold numbers of Americans, who deserve answers, from a 'legitimate' 'representative' government.

-the President, and many others, were silenced on social media, with the 'justification' of ensuring public safety.. *NOTE: The Founders listed freedom of speech, first of our Civil 'Rights', for a reason, and knew it was worth going to war, to guarantee.

-the President spoke to supporters (later proven to have been intentionally falsified and or misrepresented by both the MSM and house democrats, in the 2nd Impeachment 'trial'..)
You'll probably recall MSM focusing on the use of the term 'fight' in political rhetoric, but the *most valuable take away, went mostly ignored.. The full context of exactly what the President said, that was being cut in a way to try to justify the "Incitement of Insurrection" 'charge'.
*NOTE: He starts with his own propaganda video, then calls out the prosecution propaganda, but, at 14:35
19:47 "you have to get your people to fight" edited.
22:30 "false in one thing, false in everything"

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508916-3/impeachment-trial-day-4-part-2

As you hear what was actually said, vs. what the MSM and DNC presented to the American people, further keep in mind, despite provable facts, a biased congress allowed themselves to make a partisan political decision to impeach anyway. *I submit, that is not the act of 'legitimate' government.

Despite what most MSM says, those who attended the alleged Trump insurrection speech, weren't a 'single' unit, group. The presumed 'intent' of *everyone present, was 'insurrection'. Presumably, you'd have to ask each individual, what their 'intent' was, that day.

Each, having 'their day in court' is great (presuming the arrests were justified in the first place), but one, can not, because her 'rights' to due process, were stripped from her, while she was unarmed. She was at least related to military law enforcement, and would reasonably 'know' her actions didn't warrant a lethal response.

The greatest threat to our nation, was the circumstances surrounding the only shot fired during the 'insurrection', the murder of Ashli Babbitt. Follow me here, to understand why I cite this as a national disgrace, *most dangerous precedent, never before seen since before the founding of our nation.

Ashli Babbit was unarmed, a political adversary to congress-'protester', invited by the President, to the Capitol 'of the People', trying to enter doors that I'm not convinced should've been locked in the first place, when a single officer, (possibly with congressional unlawful orders) made no effort to arrest her (due process), they went straight to execution. On it's face, that's horrendous.

Then congress and the incoming administration with support of corporate mainstream media, named her 'terrorist', and sanctioned the murder.

Then the 'Justice' Department, declared there would be no charges or identification of the officer, and that his actions under duress weren't illegal. Apparently the DOJ ignored a few things, including the fact the shooter rolled the fingers of his support hand, prior to engaging. That (to me at least) suggests forethought.. That it wasn't an instant 'snap' response to a legitimate threat.

'but she was warned'

No, listening to the video, police aren't heard issuing any verbal warning.. Even if they had, that presupposes police are authorized to use lethal force on unarmed Americans.

Well with that precedent, now police *are authorized to use lethal force against *all unarmed American political adversary protesters.

The D.C. police chief and D.C. National Guard twitter feeds mentioned having briefings to change their Rules of Engagement (ROE)/ Rules for the Use of Force (RUF) after that, without disclosure of what 'changed', but presumably with observation to that precedent.

To this day, Americans are paying for an Army of occupation, to 'guard' the Capitol 'of the People', against, 'the People' (taxation without representation; 3rd and 4th Amendment violations?)

I submit none of those, are the acts of 'legitimate' 'representative' government.

Getting back to the January 6th crowd.. Some other questions..

*Did the crowd have (reasonable) cause to believe their government was about to fall to a DNC insurrection? *I submit, the government gave them no reason to doubt it, through investigation of the President's allegations of possible election fraud.

*Even worst case scenario, saying everyone present intended to somehow physically, 'stop the steal'.. hypothetically, *is a physical resistance to insurrection or subversion of the intent of the Constitution, an insurrection?

*is it legitimate to call a group of primarily unarmed gun-owners, 'insurrectionists'? (only one known, possibly off-duty police officer, was armed).

*is it 'legitimate' to criminalize a group of American citizens, their presence, and right to peaceably assemble to air grievances, in the 'hallowed' Capitol 'of the People', especially after 'representatives' denied them those 'rights', and while they're there by Presidential invite?

*I submit, in hindsight, the President should have done more to ensure the People could confidently believe a legitimate transfer of power was about to occur. (through official investigation)

*NOTE: by my best estimate, the entire concept of a 'peaceful transfer of power' is both, a relatively recent social construct, and presupposes no illegitimate transfer, which every American has a duty to resist, and militia must resist with all force necessary.

*NOTE: It would also be my best estimate, that the obligation to 'peaceably assemble' presupposes Civil 'Rights' aren't being oppressed, and that our Founders actions are *the best example for what they deemed worth going to war to protect.

Do any of you have the moral courage to agree with those two points? (of course, if you disagree, feel free to explain any faults in my reasoning)

Given the extremely questionable circumstances surrounding the 2020 'election' as a whole, and congress and the DOJ ignoring the petition of '75 million' Americans, not to mention the President, he may well have been within his rights to call up the militia of every state, along with specific direction for the DOJ, to secure and ensure a fair 'vote count'.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." - John Harington

We are Myanmar right now, just untested. Let that sink in, and tell me I'm wrong.

So finally to answer the original question, under these current conditions, where I believe we may very well be operating under an illegitimate government, I would actively support *any action toward guaranteeing for the People, a free and fair election result was achieved, consistent with Constitutional intent; fully understanding, I would be named by likely criminals and conspirators, as a 'terrorist', with all that entails.

Live election results: 2020 Arizona results

Live 2020 Arizona election results and maps by country and district. POLITICO's coverage of 2020 races for President, Senate, House, Governors and Key Ballot Measures.

Response by SSG Christopher Reaves made Jun 3 at 2021 10:46 PM

2021-06-03T22:46:02-04:00

Hell no, this order is truly illegal, if you obey it's straight to the Hauge, for a date with your own personal war crimes trail...

Response by PO3 Rachel Jette made Jun 3 at 2021 10:56 PM

2021-06-03T22:56:29-04:00

That is easy to answer now, No I would not. I would also believe my young self would not have. My oath IS to protect this country and the Constitution from enemies with out, and within.

Response by Sgt Eldred Brown made Jun 4 at 2021 3:30 AM

2021-06-04T03:30:14-04:00

Obedience to unlawful or unconstitutional orders is itself a punishable violation of the UCMJ, so we have a duty, not just a right, to disobey illegal or unconstitutional orders.

Response by PFC Jesse Geary-Jeffery made Jun 4 at 2021 7:04 AM

2021-06-04T07:04:16-04:00

No it goes against the constitution, we took an oath to uphold the constitution, a crybaby loser, wanting to undo 200+ years of is not a reason to break that oath

Response by SSG James Nelson made Jun 4 at 2021 8:41 AM

2021-06-04T08:41:15-04:00

Hell No

Response by A1C Perry Miller made Jun 4 at 2021 9:03 AM

2021-06-04T09:03:05-04:00

No. My oath included defending the Constitution. To me, that
"trumps" an unconstitutional order from my commander.

Response by A1C Perry Miller made Jun 4 at 2021 9:16 AM

2021-06-04T09:16:44-04:00

No. My oath included defending the Constitution; therefore, I could not obey an unconstitutional order.
I would immediately after that, however, see an attorney.
Perry Miller, USAF 1963-1967.

Response by LT Stewart Herrick made Jun 4 at 2021 10:35 AM

2021-06-04T10:35:41-04:00

The question is both specious and answers itself.? If an order is illegal, unconstitutional, or both, the order MUST be disobeyed. Since when did our military become the political arm of an unbalanced, undemocratic would be autocrat?

Response by 1LT John Neil Jednoralski made Jun 4 at 2021 10:44 AM

2021-06-04T10:44:18-04:00

An illegal or moral order can be disobeyed !!!
Examples Nuremberg Trials and My Lai

Your second question: In the case of the last presidential election, I would be willing to support Trump, because the election was stolen!!

Response by SGT David Spearel made Jun 4 at 2021 1:45 PM

2021-06-04T13:45:22-04:00

No I wouldn’t obey an illegal order given by an outgoing president just to overturn election results he or she didn’t like. That’s why they are free elections and not sham elections like our adversaries have. That’s an open act of treason no matter the rank,

Response by PO3 Samuel Archer made Jun 4 at 2021 1:56 PM

2021-06-04T13:56:40-04:00

I thought Twitter was for anti trumpers. This is a loaded question. No one is going to answer this. Plus, someone would have to know for sure that the election was fair and secure. Blocked investigations and blocked lawsuits don’t really help to gain public trust. All military personnel have to obey lawful orders. If the election is faulty, then martial law and insurrection act would be lawful orders.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2021 2:01 PM

2021-06-04T14:01:41-04:00

Why are so many afraid of controversy? President JFK's statement that, 'it should be a crime to shrink from controversy,' remains timeless. Yet this post asks a simple question: Are you an oathkeeper, or not? Do you believe the law or not?

Response by MAJ Phil Bundy made Jun 4 at 2021 2:39 PM

2021-06-04T14:39:46-04:00

Never did, never would.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Jun 4 at 2021 3:31 PM

2021-06-04T15:31:51-04:00

Difficult example (sitting U.S. President issue); but in such a case, it would be foolhardy for someone like myself, a SSG to decide it's an illegal or unconstitutional order. One MUST presume that the Joint Chiefs, in concert with the SJA and/or JAG, as well as the DOJ AG, had already hashed out whether or not the order was legal and Constitutional.
Of course if in that scenario, or even other event if a LT, CPT, etc were to order subordinates to fire upon a crowd, that COULD cause an NCO or even a soldier to question or even challenge that kind of order. If one looks at the prison episode involving the WV Reservists who brutalized prisoners, ANY soldier SHOULD have challenged an order or even an act by ANY other service member.
One thing about the Navy training I received - there were a LOT of examples given of what constitutes and unlawful order, and the action that could, or should be taken. Also included were the potential remifications if you were WRONG in a challenge or disobeying.
This is where NCO's must ... absolutely MUST show their character one way or the other; but ESPECIALLY in the case of an illegal order. Also, one muist NEVER let personal, or political views give favor to an illegal/improper order.

Response by SGT Jesse Cozad made Jun 4 at 2021 3:59 PM

2021-06-04T15:59:26-04:00

No. We swore an oath to defend the constitution not the whims of unethical would be tyrants. If your orders violate the constitution or are known to be unlawful then report it to higher.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jun 4 at 2021 5:11 PM

2021-06-04T17:11:15-04:00

It’sJanuary 6th and you are a Police Officer. You are ordered to open fire to protect Congress?
WELL?

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Jun 4 at 2021 5:39 PM

2021-06-04T17:39:10-04:00

Well, trumpski is out so we don't have that worry anymore.

Response by Sgt Christine Magnan made Jun 4 at 2021 5:51 PM

2021-06-04T17:51:55-04:00

No and No. I believe that any active duty military that took part in the 1/6 attack on the capital should be tried for treason and given a dishonorable discharge, I also believe that Mr. Trump incited a riot and should be held legally responsible. It was a dishonorable thing for the Commander and Chief to have done.

Response by Lt Col Warren Domke made Jun 4 at 2021 8:50 PM

2021-06-04T20:50:55-04:00

I would resist such an order to the best of my ability. Even a threat to my career would not be enough to make it the right thing to do. That said, what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional may require some interpretation. Even legal experts don't always agree and one duty of the Supreme Court is to determine Constitutionality. If I were absolutely certain an order violated the Constitution I would consider it my duty to not obey it. I would respectfully decline to obey the order and state why I was doing so. Fortunately in my years of service I was never given an Unconstitutional order.

Response by PO2 Joel Warthen made Jun 4 at 2021 10:26 PM

2021-06-04T22:26:51-04:00

Absolutely not. I swore to uphold the constitution and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Response by PO1 Don Rowan made Jun 5 at 2021 11:27 AM

2021-06-05T11:27:32-04:00

No.

Response by CPL Jeffrey Solomon made Jun 5 at 2021 7:44 PM

2021-06-05T19:44:59-04:00

Don't falll into this BullShit hole started by this person. Move on to the next question.

Response by CPL Bruce Ailiff made Jun 6 at 2021 10:31 AM

2021-06-06T10:31:01-04:00

Ok, now this site has shown its' true colors! The article attached to this question is written by a Communist rag! When I was in the US Army, we trained to kill Communist, not vote for them and definitely not help them destroy our Country!
If you have sworn an oath to protect our Constitution, you better damn well study it and understand what our Founding Fathers fought to create and preserve in their fight for Freedom. Read the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. It is obvious that our Country is no longer controlled by the People, for the People, and of the People! These propagandists will twist everything around to convince you that our Constitution says things that it does not! Get educated, know how they are taking our freedoms, and stand with the People, not against when the time comes.
The enemy is now within! I swore to defend this Country against enemies Foreign and Domestic! The Foreign enemy now controls the Domestic enemies who have sold us out!
I will abide by my oath and I will kill the enemy when the time comes, regardless of the uniform that they wear!
Bravo Alfa 2.......OUT!!

Response by 1SG Charles Hunter made Jun 6 at 2021 3:40 PM

2021-06-06T15:40:08-04:00

I thought this issue was fully answered at Nuernberg in 1945-46.

Response by SSG Lucien Hecker made Jun 7 at 2021 9:13 AM

2021-06-07T09:13:01-04:00

The fact that in the question it states 'illegal' or 'unconstitutional' order is all you need to know. You DO NOT follow unlawful orders! No matter who gives them. It's in your oath for Pete's sake; I will follow the LAWFUL orders of those above me.

Response by SPC Halle Henderson made Jun 7 at 2021 12:10 PM

2021-06-07T12:10:04-04:00

No,,I they lost they lost

Response by SP5 Norman McGill made Jun 7 at 2021 9:23 PM

2021-06-07T21:23:38-04:00

What a great question and added to it should be "would you fire on Americans if ordered to do so?" Also would you, as a company commander, order your company to shoot at Americans if ordered to do so? Relevant to Jan 6th the gumint says there were about 500 rioters that busted into the Capitol Building but it looked to be more like 2-300 to me max. All the rest were protestors standing around outside and weren't involved with the break-in. So suppose some of the rioters who were inside the building started to fire at the capitol police and the police started firing back. Now comes the Marines or the National Guard and they are ordered to "use lethal force" to quell the disturbance. How do you decide who to shoot at without killing innocent bystanders? Would you give the order? Is the order legal? Hope to hear from the upper brass on this one. Pete

Response by CPO Kurt Baschab made Jun 8 at 2021 12:52 AM

2021-06-08T00:52:06-04:00

the Answer is simple I would Not Knowingly Obey A Unlawful or Un-Constitutional Order.
so How do you tell what is a Lawful and Unlawful order?
what is Constitutional and Un-Constitutional Order?
answer
read and understand the Declaration OF INDEPENDENCE , THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION , THE BILL OF RIGHT, AND THE FEDERAL LIST AND ANTI FEDERAL LIST, BE ABLE TO ASK AND ANSWER THE 5 (W) THE WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE , AND WHY., THESE DOCUMENTS WERE WRITTEN AND MORE.
READ THE BIBLE FOR MORALE CLARITY , FOR WHAT IS RIGHT AND WROUNG.
READ AND UNDERSTAND THE UCMJ
THESE DOCUMENTS WILL GIVE YOU THE Moral Clarity from what is right and WROUNG .WHAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER, AND WHAT IS A UN-CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER, WHAT IS A LAWFUL ORDER, AND WHAT IS A UNLAWFUL ORDER. REMEBER YOU TOOK A OTHA TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC THREATS. YOU DID NOT TAKE A OTHA TO PROTECT ANY SINGLE PRESIDENT, OR POLTICAL PARTY. ONLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Response by PVT Pat Morrison made Jun 8 at 2021 6:28 PM

2021-06-08T18:28:12-04:00

Why not explain what the military code of conduct says about illegal orders? The code is what is expected from a soldier.

Response by PO1 George White made Jun 13 at 2021 10:51 AM

2021-06-13T10:51:36-04:00

I think the original question is more than a little disingenuous. It states a hypothetical based on a totally unrelated incident, an incident that is supposedly contained in the report to which the URL links and supports reason to ask the question.

If hypothetical is going to be done, stick with hypothetical.

The hypothetical as it should be asked is can only be answered by knowing with certainty that the order is indeed illegal and unconstitutional.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jun 13 at 2021 9:32 PM

2021-06-13T21:32:06-04:00

Was there an election?

Response by MAJ Ken Price made Jun 18 at 2021 12:13 AM

2021-06-18T00:13:55-04:00

This post is going nowhere.

Response by SSG Eric Blue made Jun 18 at 2021 9:47 AM

2021-06-18T09:47:32-04:00

No. I have disobeyed orders during my career that I deemed illegal, such as killing or maiming non-combatants and insurgents who have surrendered willingly. I caught some serious heat from my NCOs and company commander when I got back inside the wire. But when I explained my actions and the actions of others going on around me to them (with the 1SG, CSM, BTL CPT, and BN CMDR present) the senior leaders saw that I did "the right thing" and that REALLY pissed off my NCOs and company commander because they were trying to get me killed on the regular and make it look like an accident. But that's just me. I can sleep at night without drugs, liquor, or medicine when I do what's right. That's important to me.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 18 at 2021 10:53 AM

2021-06-18T10:53:34-04:00

SSG Bill McCoy I assume u r a Trump supporter?

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Jun 18 at 2021 8:26 PM

2021-06-18T20:26:27-04:00

We are not talking some easy to perceive here like killing bound prisoners or woman and children. If you think it's a bad order press the person giving it. If they falter, it's probably a bad order. Now anyone obeying a 'Bad' order had better not come back later and say "I was just following orders." It's too late then. We have the UCMJ, our military values and of course the Geneva convention to help guide us. And never forget your heart and gut. I've disobeyed a couple of direct orders in my time. I've still got my rank and retirement.............

Response by CPL Terry Mason made Jun 19 at 2021 12:39 PM

2021-06-19T12:39:07-04:00

NEVER!! It happened to me in June 1976 at Camp Zama Japan. I had a SGM who thought he was God. A E-9 that was a idiot!! I am preparing to clear post for my ETS and the SGM tells me to get a haircut!! My is within legal limits so I ignore him!! A few days later he says I told you to get a haircut, I reply my hair is legal, I am NOT getting a haircut!! He then gives me a Direct Order to get a haircut!! I ignore again as the order is ILLEGAL!! So I get sent to see my CO a Major. He reads the Article 15 to me. Asks me if I have any questions. I say Yes I have questions and facts. #1 your hair is longer than mine Sir!! He says put your cap on and turn around then agrees his hair is longer than mine! what else do you have? I asked what war are we fighting?? He says we are not at war, Why?? I ask if he knows his General Orders. The lightbulb comes on!! He says grab that half of the Article 15, he grabs the other and tears it up!! He says wait in the 1SG office till released and to tell Top he wants to see the SGM!! The SGM got wrote up!

Response by SFC Steven Howard made Jun 24 at 2021 2:54 PM

2021-06-24T14:54:17-04:00

This horse has been ridden had and put up wet.
1) illegal order: do not not obey an unlawful/illegal order as laid out by UCMJ, Laws of Warfare, etc.
Clean the latrine is not illegal: kill the refugees is.
2) unconstitutional order: Are you a Supreme Court Justice? Didn't think so... Call JAG when you've finished the task. The Military is here to defend the Constitution, not analyze it.

To the best of my knowledge, I was not released from my oath when I retired. Vets should tread carefully when choosing groups to follow. Uncle Sam and the UCMJ are patient, complicated and vengeful.
Bottom Line Up Front: I'm retired but if some wanna be fires on me I will engage and destroy the enemy foreign or domestic

Response by CPT Al Grignon made Jun 29 at 2021 9:26 AM

2021-06-29T09:26:24-04:00

Really? You have to do better work on hiding your intentions. The salient question in your post has nothing to do with the web link provided.

I say again. Really? Frank and friendly?

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jun 29 at 2021 2:34 PM

2021-06-29T14:34:43-04:00

Until that vote was taken, he had not lost the election in the Electoral College. I would have opened fire on the insurrectionists

Response by MSG Chuck Pewsey made Jul 7 at 2021 4:10 AM

2021-07-07T04:10:24-04:00

Ask for it in writing. That should clarify what the superior wants and, hopefully, make him/her think about it.

Response by SFC Tim OReilly made Jul 11 at 2021 10:25 AM

2021-07-11T10:25:16-04:00

As sitting President Trump was following his duties regarding existing riots. That said, his position ends at the date and time specified by law. Beyond that specific "example" be ready to take what comes. If an order is unconstitutional/illegal protest it. If your protest is overruled, you have a choice UCMJ actions may be full no matter what you do.

Response by SSG Frank Bova made Jul 11 at 2021 10:47 AM

2021-07-11T10:47:47-04:00

There is a foul odor of political persuasion entering the military. Might not follow an illegal order but let the politicians duke out what’s unconstitutional. A lot of them don’t seem to know.

Response by LTJG Sandra Smith made Jul 11 at 2021 2:30 PM

2021-07-11T14:30:14-04:00

1st, we HAD an illegitimate sitting"POTUS", a man not o ly not natural born, as per the Constitution, but not even an US citizen, & all efforts to oppose him & his unlawful orders & acts were treated as CRIMES, indtead of being properly investigated, & evidence heard, which tells me those asking this question, now, do not WANT the truth here; the way it's worded says they want the narrative. Well, I can't & won't give it to them. We now have a 2nd illegitimate régime in place: a senile old man incapable of rationally dicarging the duties, & a NON- citizen (per the correct reading of the 14th A on citizenship) masquerading as VPOTUS. Obeying them is to betray the very Constitution to which we now sed to take our oaths, not to mention disobeying the higher laws of Yhwh God! These are people following & pushing the anti-Constitutional, anti- God, Satanic agenda, whom I cannot, in good conscience, obey under any circumstances. As an officer, the UCMJ required me to not follow such orders, had I been given such. As a citizen & Christian I must obey God's law when there is a conflict, & where the Bible isn't entirely clear on a specific issue, for example the jabs called "vaccines" erroneously, I revert to my professional training & experience & the Holy Spirit's guidance. The bottom line is no, Icould & would not obey unlawful orders, however, I would discern which "side" was telling the truth!

Response by Sgt Glen Barnes made Jul 11 at 2021 3:58 PM

2021-07-11T15:58:53-04:00

How would you know!
The movie, a few good men!

Response by SSG Jeff Beltran made Jul 11 at 2021 4:18 PM

2021-07-11T16:18:58-04:00

This is clearly a stupid trigger question, meant to bring out the worst of debates amongst fellow Veterans, and those currently serving, who took the Oath to defend to the Constitution. It is not a vital topic question that should be discussed and simply asked by some civilian, who does not know a damn thing about the U.S. Military and its laws, because #1 Judah or whatever your name is; presuming never took the Oath or experienced a day in our U.S. military. #2 You have no cover profile for who you are? #3 why are we even going to entertain this person who obviously wants to create hostile intent on a debate that has already shown the immorality and blatant thievery of the American Election System? Judah you will not have my frank and friendly opinion, until you explain your true intent.

Response by SSG Mark Tsunokai made Jul 11 at 2021 4:20 PM

2021-07-11T16:20:05-04:00

Of course not. You have the right to question and request clarification for a order that is "unquestionable." There's the challenge. History is filled with military personnel using the defense, "I was following orders." I'm a firm believer and supporter of The Laws of Land Warfare and The Geneva Convention.

Response by Capt Bill Straw made Jul 11 at 2021 7:42 PM

2021-07-11T19:42:34-04:00

This question looks like a set up to bash Trump, but I am genuinely concerned about whether or not the US military of today has enough knowledge of the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers to make a sensible and legal decision in such an instance. I know I am in “old guy“, but for me the answer is “No, I would not follow an illegal or unconstitutional order!” I would hope that at least some of our senior leader ship (and I don’t have much confidence, based on what I’ve seen of late, that very many are of like mind) would feel the same way.

Response by LTC Michael Keenan made Jul 11 at 2021 8:42 PM

2021-07-11T20:42:19-04:00

Re the martial law or Insurrection Act, after I do a quick coordination with my local JAG officer, who will probably tell me the orders and declarations are illegal. Assuming he/she is correct, I would disobey all orders I consider illegal and/or unconstitutional. But this is what I always have done over my 28+ year career.
One could argue the case that EVERY order from above is illegal. This can turn into a CF of the first magnitude rapidly. How does anyone know who is loyal to the UCMJ, the Constitution, etc.? A myriad of problems will arise.
Of course, most of the foregoing could be made moot if the JCS and the Chief JAG officer agree the situation is illegal and unconstitutional, and then issue this opinion to all Combatant and Area Commanders. The real "rub" here is the SECDEF. The SECDEF must issue the order version of the JCS "opinion." to not comply with the President. Is he/she loyal to his/her oath of office or to the President? Things to ponder. Someone should write a book.

Response by SPC Troy Shelby made Jul 11 at 2021 9:40 PM

2021-07-11T21:40:19-04:00

This question is a powder keg waiting to explode. I am assuming you are referencing the recent election where there were those calling for trump to invoke the insurrection act I still believe the election was stolen by the democratic party through cheating and lying as such they did accomplish an insurrection of sorts but that is irrelevant at this point in time. We as soldiers take a sacred oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic we are also obligated by that oath to disobey and even resist orders that are contrary to the constitution in the scenario that you put forth you have to decide if you believe the order violates first the Constitution and secondly the law if you're answer is yes than again it is your duty to disobey that order even at the risk of your military career. I personally do believe Trump should have invoked the Insurrection act and I do consider the Democratic party as traitors to the American People (Citizens) but that is my opinion and I have a right to it just as any who disagree have that right

Response by Sgt Truman D Fields made Jul 12 at 2021 2:06 PM

2021-07-12T14:06:52-04:00

NO !! If it is illegal or immoral, we do not have to obey it. We are to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and/or domestic...

Response by LCDR Robert Russnogle made Jul 12 at 2021 7:31 PM

2021-07-12T19:31:05-04:00

Fortunately for me this only occurred twice in my career. No I did not obey, to my officer in charge it was illegal, immoral, and probably fattening and would carry out the order. One occasion we pounded fists on his desk at each other but I finally convinced the Admiral that what he wanted to do was illegal. He relented and allowed me to show him the law and Navy Regs. Eventually he shook my hand and we went on from there. An old axiom though is "Let your conscience be your guide but disobey at your peril" You had better be right

Response by Cpl John Payne made Jul 14 at 2021 11:41 AM

2021-07-14T11:41:44-04:00

SINCE I TOOK THE OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION THE OF UNITED STATES THE PRESIDENT IS STILL THE COMMANDER WHETHER YOU LIKE HIM OR NOT SO I THINK YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO OBEY BUT THE VIOLENCE GET WORST EVERYDAY SOMEONE HAS TO HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Response by PFC Ray Aquila made Jul 14 at 2021 1:51 PM

2021-07-14T13:51:19-04:00

If a sitting president was to invoke Martial Law after losing an lawful election, I personally would not in any way or form obey any order from said ex-president. The sitting president losing by Electoral votes is no longer president. He/she must, by constitutional law, VACATE immediately. He/she is no longer president. This question has to do by the Loser of the 2020 Nov. 8 elections. Trump lost not only by popular vote of over 81 million US citizens. But by a landslide of 306 Electoral College Votes. Trump, to date, has sued some 63 times to over turn the a legal election. Trump has lost 63 of those suits. There is no provisions in our US Constitution to be reinstate. There is no such animal. Trump lost. instead of Trumps continued divisions of our USA. Trump and his minions has got to move on. Of course this will never happen. Trump is a Seditionist. Trump was the cause, along with others ,manufactured the insurrection of 01/06/2021. DONALD JOHN TRUMP is a TRAITOR to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and should be treated as a Traitor........PERIOD!!!!!!!!

Response by SPC Larry Weigel Jr. made Jul 14 at 2021 10:22 PM

2021-07-14T22:22:38-04:00

Let’s see, my oath stated clearly to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic” so I believe my response would be hell no I won’t obey!! The Constitution is the highest law of the land and thus must supersede all other laws, period!

Response by PO1 Royce Beasley made Jul 15 at 2021 2:58 AM

2021-07-15T02:58:22-04:00

No, I would not. I am a disabled Vietnam Veteran.

Response by SFC Charles Williamson made Jul 15 at 2021 9:26 AM

2021-07-15T09:26:20-04:00

The only reason I can see someone asking this question in the current times is to stir the pot and cause a mess. As a “civilian supporter” it really isn’t your position to ask any military personnel Retired or Active duty whether or not they would obey a “legal or unconstitutional order” unless you are trying to do so. In my honest opinion. Who are you really working for and what’s your motivation behind this question?

Response by LTC Ed Mitchell made Jul 15 at 2021 3:07 PM

2021-07-15T15:07:38-04:00

My oath when I joined the army as a private and when I took it again with my appointment to Lieutenant was "to defend the Constitution of the United States. . ." So I could not follow a order that I knew was a violation of the Constition.

Response by SGM Randolph Watkins made Jul 17 at 2021 10:20 AM

2021-07-17T10:20:01-04:00

I think this is a legitimate question, but only on an individual basis and not one to be discussed on this open forum. Each AD individual may have to answer this personally, because it has happened before and could happen again. The example I have in mind occurred in 1970 at Kent State University in Ohio. Ohio National Guard troops fired on students protesting the Viet Nam War. Nobody knows for sure if an actual order was given to fire of it it was a "shot heard 'round the world" incident like at Lexington Green at the beginning of the Revolution, but the troops did have live ammunition and students were killed and wounded. It could happen again. We need to think about it NOW!

Response by SPC Edvard Svanoe made Jul 17 at 2021 12:40 PM

2021-07-17T12:40:40-04:00

IF there are questions raised BEFORE the electoral College votes then the vote should be valid only for those States that had NO CHALLENGES. Any State that HAS CHALLENGES should be held in abayance until the legal process has been completed. If it requires a forensic recount to determine the outcome? So be it... If the State can not resolve the issue because data was destroyed they should hold a new election ASAP with massive law enforcement, from OTHER States, present to ensure there is NO CHANCE of repeat CRIMES. During this time the sitting officials would stay in place, to ensure that there IS a "competent authority" until the outcome is verified. That having been said, the ones who represent the "competent authority" should have absolutely NOTHING to do with the resolution of any voter irregularities ANYWHERE and should NOT be allowed to comment on the proceedings.
From a military aspect? All of the above means that NO MILITARY ACTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE for any reason other than a refusal to LEAVE OFFICE once honest results were established or an attempt was made to displace the sitting Government before the results were established. There should be a time limit placed upon any State with issues to resolve, at the expiration thereof the States EC votes are REMOVED from the total and their election is "Set Aside" due to malfeasance and an inability to run an honest election.
There should also be MANDATORY Federal JAIL-TIME for anyone who tries to alter or falsify any facet of an election, from voting, counting, harvesting, media suppression, platform bans, etc. The original posit said the Orders were illegal... the EC had already voted him out... so of course NOT! I took the long way around to offer a FIX for the process.

Response by COL Owen Mueller made Jul 17 at 2021 6:56 PM

2021-07-17T18:56:56-04:00

NOPE

Response by COL Owen Mueller made Jul 17 at 2021 6:57 PM

2021-07-17T18:57:12-04:00

Nope

Response by PO3 Robert Cassidy made Jul 17 at 2021 11:51 PM

2021-07-17T23:51:12-04:00

It is your duty to disobey an illegal or/and unconstitutional order. If you don't, then what are you defending but a Commie Dictator in a Banana Republic. I read the Navy Regs when I was a PO2. I saw that many orders were expected to be followed simply because they came from a superior, even though they violated Navy Regs. When I left the service, I was a PO3. Don't let Brown Nose Brass (BNB) take away your humanity, your knowing right from wrong and honoring your God, Country and Self.

Response by SGT Steven Wade made Jul 18 at 2021 2:07 AM

2021-07-18T02:07:37-04:00

Nope

Response by Capt Edward Egan made Jul 18 at 2021 10:34 PM

2021-07-18T22:34:00-04:00

"... 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 ..." 1965, no expiration date.
For those currently serving it applies most specifically.
To obey an unconstitutional order would violate my oath; to obey an illegal order would violate my moral code.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Jul 19 at 2021 2:07 AM

2021-07-19T02:07:09-04:00

First off, I am retired and have no obligation to "obey" an order from anyone in the military or the president. If you want to give me orders, you will have to recall me to active duty.

Having said that, we have to obey all legal orders when we are on active duty. We also have an obligation to not obey any illegal orders, BUT we better be damn sure they are illegal!

I agree with some of the others, the purpose of this post is to stir the pot. Drop it the election is in the past.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Jul 19 at 2021 10:28 PM

2021-07-19T22:28:22-04:00

NO!!!

Response by SPC Carl Hockett made Jul 19 at 2021 10:32 PM

2021-07-19T22:32:02-04:00

Judah, thy name is Judas.

Response by SFC Paul Rhoten made Jul 20 at 2021 2:51 PM

2021-07-20T14:51:52-04:00

NO NO

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made Jul 21 at 2021 8:23 PM

2021-07-21T20:23:11-04:00

It is an established fact that none of the things reported in the article of this post actually happened. President Trump did not use any kind of force in order to have a photo opportunity.

With that said, it is entirely possible that President Biden could use force to implement any number of his policies; it would also seem like the 117th Congress would back him.

For instance, President Biden wants to force CRT to be taught in schools, and Parents refuse to allow this to happen. President Biden calls in the National Guard to break up a protest.

Now what?

Response by SGT Garlon Overley made Jul 22 at 2021 8:16 AM

2021-07-22T08:16:50-04:00

DELETE!!!!!

Response by SSgt Richard Peterson made Jul 22 at 2021 8:56 AM

2021-07-22T08:56:22-04:00

Absolutely not.

Response by CW3 Michael Hess made Jul 23 at 2021 4:49 PM

2021-07-23T16:49:14-04:00

Damn, you Marxist are everywhere. The link was for stopping BLM and Antifa from burning things down. Nancy Pelosi started that crap about a military coup, not Trump. It seems that a lot of the chain of command are compromised as well. You have not “stirred the pot” for friendly chatting, since the subject matter is so divisive.

Response by SSgt Jeffrey Fatheree made Jul 23 at 2021 6:31 PM

2021-07-23T18:31:36-04:00

I would not obey an unlawful order

Response by SPC Harold Otto made Jul 24 at 2021 10:59 AM

2021-07-24T10:59:17-04:00

trump tried to overthrow the government

Response by SGT William Hopper made Jul 24 at 2021 11:45 AM

2021-07-24T11:45:46-04:00

No I would not!

Response by COL James Starke made Jul 24 at 2021 12:57 PM

2021-07-24T12:57:16-04:00

That’s an illegal order.

Response by SFC Michael Wilkins made Jul 25 at 2021 1:42 AM

2021-07-25T01:42:26-04:00

If it was morally correct to do so yes. And that I could live with the ramifications of my actions I have no problem.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA made Jul 28 at 2021 4:22 PM

2021-07-28T16:22:36-04:00

No under any circumstances by definition - it's not legal or constitutional.

Response by CPL Joseph Elinger made Jul 29 at 2021 6:15 PM

2021-07-29T18:15:08-04:00

Yes & no. If I agreed with an obvious need, I would, & take my lumps like a responsible man. If I saw no immediate evidence or need / urgency, then yes, I would refuse the order, & briefly explain why, again "facing the music." It's REALLY all about taking responsibility. "You can do anything you want to, as long as you're willing to pay the price."

Response by SPC Allen Werth made Aug 18 at 2021 10:07 AM

2021-08-18T10:07:43-04:00

No brainer, No!

Response by SGT Mary G. made Aug 18 at 2021 11:35 AM

2021-08-18T11:35:09-04:00

Let's just say the egregious Abu Ghraib debacle would not have happened because of too much hot shot civilian contractor meddling, as we were told, if I had been around to do anything to do about it.

Response by Cpl William Tanguay made Aug 18 at 2021 12:16 PM

2021-08-18T12:16:44-04:00

Not if I considered it to be morally wrong and against my upbringing.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Aug 18 at 2021 2:41 PM

2021-08-18T14:41:51-04:00

I wrote it, then I chickened out. Troll.

Response by SPC Daniel Kennedy made Aug 18 at 2021 4:41 PM

2021-08-18T16:41:26-04:00

No.

Response by SPC Charles McFate made Aug 18 at 2021 4:55 PM

2021-08-18T16:55:39-04:00

To disobey an illegal order I.E. you are ordered to kill civilians, is your sworn duty.
The constitutional part is above my pay grade...

Response by SPC Daniel Kennedy made Aug 18 at 2021 6:04 PM

2021-08-18T18:04:16-04:00

Just seeing how the modern warriors feel

Response by LCpl Kenneth Heath made Aug 27 at 2021 12:52 PM

2021-08-27T12:52:42-04:00

No. I am obligated to NOT follow illegal orders and to uphold and protect the Constitution. Stupid question.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Sep 20 at 2021 9:58 AM

2021-09-20T09:58:56-04:00

IMHO This is exactly why Civilian supporters should be limited use of this page, all to far often they ask question to instigate and attempt to push and individual narrative. The question itself is okay the narrative of the poster is the unprofessional part. JMTC

For my protection my disclaimer. No one on this site has the right to repost or reuse anything i have posted outside of Rally Point, with out written permission by My self. Go Peddle your dishonorable Trash else where.

Response by TSgt John Bonnar made Sep 20 at 2021 12:44 PM

2021-09-20T12:44:25-04:00

Nope

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Sep 25 at 2021 5:45 PM

2021-09-25T17:45:51-04:00

The former President is exactly that. There is a new Commander and Chief. Anyone who does what he tells them IS NOT FOLLOWING A LAWFUL ORDER. They take any crime unto themselves. No excuses

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Sep 25 at 2021 5:58 PM

2021-09-25T17:58:50-04:00

Disobey 101%. I had a few details around Lt. Calley's quarters. For those of you with memory that is.

Response by LCpl Grant Garrison made Oct 28 at 2021 11:47 AM

2021-10-28T11:47:05-04:00

Honest opinion. I no longer fall under the UCMJ. However I still maintain my willingness to uphold the constitution. The thing to keep in mind here is we all have personal opinions. I don't hold political views really and I will never just back up someone because they are throwing a fit. I hold on to MY personal values and those are all I have to back up. There is no such thing as right or wrong. There are laws with repercussions if you break them, if you don't fear the repercussions? You are an outlaw. But, laws get amended all the time or are just simply no longer upheld. So what exactly IS law? Merely guidelines... Someone like myself who has absolutely nothing to lose (no family, friends, significant other, children, animals, religion, position, or possessions...) makes me much more dangerous in the eyes of the law since I have nothing to manipulate me to obey if I choose not to. Like I said, it's all personal.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Nov 5 at 2021 11:01 AM

2021-11-05T11:01:30-04:00

You can't have a frank and friendly discussion on a question that lacks or alters fact. I am not sure the modern Soldier has any Idea what it means to disobey a lawful order or unconstitutional Order and it is quit obvious that the author is simply ignorant of how the military judicial system works.
Let me make it clear that it is any Soldiers Responsibility to Refuse an Illegal or Unconstitutional order. Which makes your question invalid. Then the rant to President Trump Makes it even worse. Soldiers are trained to use all information, and Circumstances to make decision. Then if still not sure use the COC to question such orders. Quit stirring the Shit pile to make your point.

Response by CPL Theodore Moore made Nov 24 at 2021 12:27 AM

2021-11-24T00:27:17-05:00

Of course not!. The UCMJ specifically states that military personnel must follow "lawful" orders.

Response by CWO3 Robert Fong made Nov 29 at 2021 10:02 AM

2021-11-29T10:02:30-05:00

Is the 1807 Insurrection Act law? If it is, then I'd ask is the current sitting President still the CNC? So to reframe the question, is the current President of the United States guilty of a crime when invoking the provisions of a lawful Act. No! Therefore, it is a lawful order regardless of reason, which the military is not equipped to analyze but for Constitutional lawyers. Now, if the Constitutional Rights of citizens are in jeopardy and states have not taken steps to stop, then the President is within his right. Now absent all the lawful reasons, and taking at face the statement above, then the Secretary of Defense can order the military to stand down and for any member to do otherwise would be in error.
This is why individual members do not make decisions to obey or not, therefore there is a command structure led by a civilian leadership who has access to more lawyers than you can shake a stick at. As for me, I wait to see what shakes out of the Bridge. The Insurrection Act order is for the SECDEF not for individual members. Now you know why lawyers make tons of money and drive Maserati and Beamers.

Response by PO2 Jimmie Shelnutt made Jan 8 at 2022 3:37 PM

2022-01-08T15:37:34-05:00

From my own experience perhaps, "have you obeyed an illegal order", might be a better question. Now, experiencing nearly four score years of life, I can say without hesitation I would not obey such orders today. But, when living less than two decades of life, and in frightful country, my answer was an unfaltering "yes sir".

Response by LTC Donell Kelly made Jan 14 at 2022 6:06 PM

2022-01-14T18:06:27-05:00

My recollection is that DOD & it’s members are SUPPOSED to BEHAVE in an apolitical manner; the higher the rank, the more you’re supposed to keep your mouth shut. Of course this post “stirred the pot.” As a LTC, I was once told by another LTC (date of rank higher than mine) that “your job is to protect the rights of free speech, not to enjoy them.” Didn’t like it, but had to agree with him. Deployed ‘05 through ‘06, the cabal of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Wolfewicz in charge, while we were inundated w/thousands of wounded, injured, sick. I still have calluses on my tongue from biting it, because I was leading a LRMC dept that got soldiers home to further care & their families. My mission mattered. My opinion did not, & my political opinion would have had created problems for the mission.
In today’s massive national & political divisions, it is vitally important that DOD & its members keep their opinions private, & I don’t mean on NON-PRIVATE web sites. Just shut the hell up, REMBER YOUR OATH & YOUR MISSION. Then leave the military & talk as much as you want.

Response by SPC Lyle Montgomery made Jan 15 at 2022 2:04 PM

2022-01-15T14:04:02-05:00

Absolutely not. I would not obey an illegally or unconstitutional order. That is a big reason that I got out after 2 years. I played the game while in but was glad to ETS and be a civilian again. Now as a civilian I can coment about the worthless leadership in washington and no butter bar can do nothing about it. Seniour officers and NCO's are fine but I would never last in the military. I did just fine in construction, have a good pension and loved every minute. Not the 2 years in the Army.

Response by SMSgt Bob Wilson made Jan 15 at 2022 3:27 PM

2022-01-15T15:27:33-05:00

What is an unconstitutional order? Judah, your sound like a "would a, could a, and what if" sort of person. I don't remember "martial law" being declared within the past 50 years. However, the following is a listing of times "martial law" was declared:
 American Revolution
 New Orleans in War of 1812
 Nauvoo, Illinois, during the Illinois Mormon War (1843)
 Utah War (1857)
 Baltimore (1861)
 Ex parte Milligan (1863)
 The Great Chicago Fire (1871)
 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (1892)
 San Francisco earthquake of 1906
 Colorado Coalfield War (1914 and 1917)
 West Virginia Coal Wars (1920-1921)
 Minneapolis, Minnesota (1934)
 San Francisco, California (1934)
 Territory of Hawaii in World War II (1941-1944)
 Russell County, Alabama (1954–55)
 Freedom Riders (1961)

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 16 at 2022 11:11 AM

2022-01-16T11:11:38-05:00

NO!

Response by LTC David Brown made Jan 16 at 2022 11:12 AM

2022-01-16T11:12:29-05:00

There are several points to make. First one is a famous psychological experiment involving a test subject told to apply an electric shock to someone. Despite the person receiving the shock exhibiting extreme discomfort the subject still administered the shock because they were encouraged and given authority. . Second point. During the war on terror two American citizens were executed with out a trial, a finding of fact justifying the order etc. The executions were under the order of a President by drone strike. One of those executed was a 16 year old. I feel this was an unconstitutional order yet I don’t see much discussion.The third is POWs taken during the war on terror. Some of them were sent to countries that preform “ wet work”. Wet work is assignations, and torture. Are those that gave prisoners over to these activities guilty of violating the rules of war and the constitution? What about the United States water boarding? Our monsters and evil doesn’t dwell in the deep dark of night but in the gray gloom of night fall and in the shadows in our hearts.

Response by Cpl Benjamin Long made Jan 16 at 2022 11:34 AM

2022-01-16T11:34:51-05:00

Well you can argue it's constitutionality in court... Which is the arena for matters of law.

Response by SSG George Holtje made Jan 16 at 2022 11:43 AM

2022-01-16T11:43:27-05:00

I am bound by my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic....so No!

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Jan 16 at 2022 11:51 AM

2022-01-16T11:51:07-05:00

NO!

Response by CW3 Michael Hess made Jan 16 at 2022 12:35 PM

2022-01-16T12:35:39-05:00

The article has nothing to do with the question!!! According to the UCMJ no member of the military is bound by an illegal order, regardless of who issued it. But, the individual receiving the order is responsible for determining its legality. Remember orders come down the chain, so generally speaking, your commander (GO, Col, Cpt, etc) have already determined the “order” is legal (maybe).

Response by MSG Ron Radar made Jan 16 at 2022 4:41 PM

2022-01-16T16:41:27-05:00

Well that Frank and Friendly discussion went the way of the Dodo real quick ! Seems politics brings out the worst in members fast , dang shame as we all know better .

Response by SGT Jerry Hoy made Jan 16 at 2022 7:23 PM

2022-01-16T19:23:24-05:00

Yes, if that's what happened which it did not. What you are saying is hypothetical. The English said the same thing to the colonialist and the people took up arms defying English Law. If half the people in this country thought the election was stolen then there's a problem. SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear the evidence but punted and that's on them. Several states bypassed the constitution and put into place illegal voting reforms bypassing their state legislatures. Just yesterday, Wisconsin Supreme Court admitted the way Wisconsin handled Mail-in ballots was illegal. So now what? You have a lot of pissed off people because the courts were too timid to take the case when it would have mattered. States that unconstitutionally bypassed the constitution include Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia; more than enough illegal votes to have turned the election. People have the right to voice their opinion and be heard. January 6th was our chance to let our voices be heard one more time before certification of the votes. Its becoming clear as this investigation proceeds that our FBI may have had a hand in the more aggressive behavior. Remember, only one person was killed (shot) that day; a woman (Trump supporter) who was unarmed. I seem to remember democrats taking over the Wisconsin State Capitol building for 26hrs and no one was arrested; the Supreme Court was invaded during the Kavanagh hearings. The FBI spied on a sitting president and lied about the whole thing and nothing happened. We have cities burned, dozens of people killed over the summer and very few arrests. People who believe as i do know there were shenanigans that went on during the 2020 election and its becoming pretty evident that there's no way in hell the current occupant in the white house got 81 million votes when he couldn't fill a school gymnasium. The 2022 election is right around the corner and the wokies are gonna get Woke.

Response by PFC Kimberly Staiti made Jan 28 at 2022 1:00 PM

2022-01-28T13:00:46-05:00

You'll get friendly responses or you'll get frank ones. I doubt you'll get them both.

Response by COL Victor Hagan made Feb 9 at 2022 1:43 PM

2022-02-09T13:43:03-05:00

I find it troublesome that any commissioned officers whose oath is to support and defend the US Constitution has an issue with stating clear and unequiviocal NO to this question.

Response by MAJ Forrest Davis made Apr 2 at 2022 2:02 PM

2022-04-02T14:02:38-04:00

Fastest way to divide your combat power by 2 is a political discussion. Second fastest way is religion. Don’t go there. Not our lane. And resister to vote.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Apr 11 at 2022 8:16 AM

2022-04-11T08:16:51-04:00

The "Nuremberg Principles" were established after the prosecution of Nazi war criminals, many of whom either defended their actions as "following orders" or "following Germany's sovereign laws." Neither of these defenses was deemed acceptable.

The "Nuremberg Principles" are:

1. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

2. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

3. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

4. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

5. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

6. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a) Crimes against peace
b) War crimes
c) Crimes against humanity

7. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle 6 is a crime under international law.

http://www.nurembergfilm.org/trial_nuremberg_principles.shtml

The MOST relevant Principle listed above to the question is Nuremberg Principle 4: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

So, NO Service Member should obey an illegal or unconstitutional order. If the US Government (or any State Government as it relates to the National Guard) orders Service Members to violate a morally viable law and/or the US Constitution, Service Members have a Legal and Moral obligation to disobey those orders.

There are many worthy case studies that we might look at to help Service Members develop an Ethical Intuition to aid in future decision making. In the case brought before us ("President Trump says he’ll deploy military to states if they don’t stop violent protests"), we can examine the circumstances without consideration of the "politics" associated with them.

The First Amendment to the Constitution acknowledges the Natural Right of The People to "... PEACEABLY...assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [EMPHASIS ADDED]. Regardless of the where we line up on Trump or the circumstances surrounding George Floyd's tragic death, we cannot escape the fact that the riots and looting that occurred throughout the nation were anything but "Peaceful" -- and attempts by anyone to categorize them as "peaceful" should undergo psychiatric evaluation by competent medical professionals The fact that the riots and looting resulted in over 25 people dead and over half a billion in property damage should dissuade us of any illusion of PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY. Ergo, the President had the LEGAL authority to call on the Military to put down an insurrection and restore lawful peace and order under 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b -- just as President George H.W. Bush had during the LA Riots in 1992.

The next question that we have to ask: Is the 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b "Moral?" That depends on the situation... If the Government is violating the National Charter (the Declaration) and the National Bylaws (the Constitution), then enforcement of and obedience to orders given under the auspices of 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b may NOT have a moral basis, and Service Members are not obligated to follow them. In the case of the George Floyd riots, the Government was in the process of redressing the injustices involved in that tragedy. So, the violent uprisings that followed were neither justified nor proportional. Therefore, the exercise of 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b would certainly have been moral.

Therefore, IF President Trump ordered the US Military to aid in the suppression of a violent insurrection (which he did not) pursuant to 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b, then US Service Members would have had to obey these as "Lawful Orders."

Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today - The Schulberg/Waletzky Restoration

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2022 12:31 PM

2022-04-14T12:31:24-04:00

Aside from the given example, Above Members have a duty to put the law first. During Hurricane Katrina, National Gaurdsmen were ordered to go door to door and confiscate guns. That's illegal. They did it anyway.

What if there really was a war between politicians who wanted to confiscate guns? Who's side would you be on? The government's, who pays you or the people you serious to protect?

I've given this a great deal of thought, but come to no conclusions. Nazi soldiers just followed orders, do our troops share the same ethics?

Response by SGT Ruben Lozada made Oct 1 at 2022 6:46 PM

2022-10-01T18:46:32-04:00

Negative ghostrider!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2022 12:22 AM

2022-10-02T00:22:43-04:00

Hell NO!

Response by SGT David Spearel made Jan 21 at 2024 9:22 PM

2024-01-21T21:22:26-05:00

No. And I’ll leave it at that