Posted on Dec 9, 2020
Judah Freed
48.2K
1.92K
627
116
112
4
41bc2e56
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/
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 210
PO3 Robert Cassidy
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
Edited 3 y ago
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.
SPC Larry Weigel Jr.
1
1
0
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!
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Troy Shelby
1
1
0
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
(1)
Comment
(0)
PFC Kimberly Staiti
PFC Kimberly Staiti
>1 y
Capt Edward Egan Have you missed all the coverage by _The Intercept_ and last week's astounding three-part, in-depth ~series~ of exposes in _The Washington Post_? First person sources are verifying just how ugly this gets ~across~ all political viewpoints. I'm shocked at how very close we came to losing this republic. How near came to blood in our streets, a brother against brother bloodbath flowing from those sacred chambers holding our ~voices~
VOICES

....and then the takeover or purge or war or what-have-you begins and the United States is not.

Many "good" people were involved. I had a family member there.

My feelings run hard that Jan 6th couldn't have really happened on purpose. It just got out of hand. Rowdy.

An accident.
It wasn't.

We need to talk.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LCDR Robert Russnogle
LCDR Robert Russnogle
>1 y
Capt Edward Egan - ???? Had a top secret clearance throughout most of my career - enlisted and commissioned. Was classified documents office twice
(0)
Reply
(0)
Capt Edward Egan
Capt Edward Egan
>1 y
LCDR Robert Russnogle - That was not addressed to you but to MSGT Jones.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Capt Edward Egan
Capt Edward Egan
>1 y
PFC Kimberly Staiti - A close friend of mine attended President Trump's rally and then went over to the protest in front of the Capitol. BEFORE any barricades were breached, the Capitol police began firing tear gas and pellets into the crowd, transforming a legal and legitimate protest into something else. When that began, my friend left.
Any violence was initiated by the "authorities". The only actual injuries and fatalities were inflicted by the "authorities" upon unarmed protesters. After the barricades were breached and the Capitol building entered, most of those who entered (some by invitation) just wandered around like tourists. The violence was initiated, escalated, and sustained by the government forces. Unlike the "mostly peaceful protests" of the preceding year, there was no arson, vandalism (okay, some glass broken in entry), graffiti, looting or assaults on the part of the protesters.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Mark Tsunokai
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
3 y
Many of those who claimed "I was following Orders" served jail time, as they should have.
Avatar small
SSG Jeff Beltran
1
1
0
Edited 3 y ago
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Steven Howard
1
1
0
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
(1)
Comment
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
3 y
Taking friendly fire.... returning same. Roger that.
Avatar small
SSG Edward Tilton
1
1
0
Was there an election?
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PVT Pat Morrison
1
1
0
Why not explain what the military code of conduct says about illegal orders? The code is what is expected from a soldier.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col Warren Domke
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close