Would you obey an illegal or unconstitutional order?

WO1 Dean Casey Do you know statistics? Explain the statistical probability that a single candidate would would receive 10s of thousands of votes and no other candidate would receive any.... I actually watched it happen in ga, I stayed up all night and watched the numbers. They didn't even try to hide it. Then if I think it was Fulton, they claimed they sent everone home, but were still counting ballots...... all of which went to a single candidate... Again. So, if nothing was done improperly, they've done a pretty crappy job of appearing to do things above board. It is certainly enough to launch investigations into if for no other reason than to remove any doubt of illegitimacy. But the gov and sec of state of GA had to have not only that but a few dozen election volunteers with sworn affidavits presented as well as VIDEO of ballot counter bullying briefcases of ballots from under the table and counting them..... I could go on but I've been watching this unfold in my state for the last month so when someone says 'show me the evidence', what it says to me is that they aren't paying attention.

As taught in collage, statistics can be written to reflect what the author wants. Evidence.

You saw it on tv, that is not evidence. Tv can be misleading.

WO1 Dean Casey - Statistics can be interpreted by the author yes, but statistical probability is based off a set value. That value was provided by live and archived poll results. The probability of one candidate receiving even a 10k+ vote dumb while all other candidates remained relatively stationary is so infinitesimally small as to be considered significant. This was the first indicator something was going on. The results I was looking at were actually live updated and archived from official polling websites, not TV. I don't watch much TV these days. Also, way to ignore the other points I brought up, which, yes, there is in fact video evidence of poll workers pulling a briefcase from under the table he was working at and unloading ballots. Any one of these SHOULD have spurred an investigation, no matter which side I was on I would want one. We MUST keep our elections from even the appearance of illegitimacy. Instead, we have the very people who should be looking at the evidence unwilling to even hear the case.

Also, sworn affidavits are considered to be enough to start an investigation and there are a number of those across multiple states and yet, no investigation.

Not the same.

Prove it. Where is the evidence?

Check the UCMJ.

SFC Casey O'Mally so your premise is that Basic Training made you a constitutional law scholar?
Well, that's certainly a thought. I'm not sure it's a good one, but that didn't stop you from having it...

SFC Michael Hasbun - No, Basic Training didn't make me a Constitutional Law scholar. And I didn't even come close to implying that, either.
I cannot speak for the other Armed Services (although I believe they are very similar), but the Army EXPECTS Soldiers OF ALL RANKS to understand the difference between a lawful and unlawful order. THAT is what they are taught in Basic Training. Obey lawful orders, don't obey unlawful ones.

Back in about 2010 (give or take a few years) the Army unveiled the "strategic corporal" recognizing that lower and lower echelons of leaders and Soldiers are having to make more and more meaningful decisions.

So.. "are your even remotely qualified to determine" a lawful order? Yes. EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER IN THE ARMY IS.

SFC Casey O'Mally and that is an individual decision made on gut instinct, not through any specialized training or education.
Everyone has the right to refuse an order they feel is unlawful, and they also have to deal with the consequences (AKA UCMJ) when they find out the barracks lawyers were wrong.
People get kicked out every day for refusing orders they THINK are unlawful.

SFC Michael Hasbun - At the Private - SPC level, sure. But beginning in BLC, we start teaching our leaders about legal issues in a very real and formalized sense, with increasing levels of complexity as Soldiers rise through the ranks.

And even as Private, we still teach SOME specialized legal training, i.e. the law of land warfare, EO/EEO, and sexual harassment. In my last AIT (I was a SFC, but most of my class was PVT or PV2) we had extended blocks of training on legal issues pertinent to intelligence collection, retention, and dissemination, as well as legal and illegal questioning techniques, legal and illegal collection targets, and proper reporting of illegal intelligence acts.

You characterization of "gut instinct without specialized training or education" is patently absurd. Now, it is DEFINITELY true that Soldiers WILL be faced with tough decisions for which they have NOT been specifically trained. But even then, they have a strong foundation to fall back upon, AND a JAG office to reference, when necessary.

The situation is a legal one not a moral. Remember the norm is follow the order. The exception is refuse the order. You better be a legal genius and have all the info before you refuse.