Posted on Dec 9, 2020
Would you obey an illegal or unconstitutional order?
59.9K
1.33K
550
113
109
4
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/
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/
UCMJ
Martial Law
Election 2020
Civil Affairs
Orders
Edited 5 y ago
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 203
11
11
0
11
11
0
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.
(11)
(0)
11
11
0
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.
(11)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
SGT Nathan H. Those violate the moral and ethical codes. Even if they become law.
(1)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
SGT Nathan H. You're given a direct order to do something you know in your soul is wrong. Say overseas, total violation of the geniva convention, no witnesses. But if you disobey this direct order you could be criminally charged with whatever "crime" the person who ordered you to do this, comes up with. Do you commit this crime to save face with your commanding officer and avoid punishment or do you give a one finger salute and do what is right? That's what this comes down to. Lets call this question what it really is...
When Marshall law comes and you're forced to enforce curfews, when you're guarding those who are burning books, when you're forcing people to take vaccines they dont feel are safe, when you're "relocating" those who openly exercise their 1st and 2and amendment rights, when the USA you know becomes Nazi Germany, will you "follow orders" and regurgitate "it's for your safety" or will you stand and fight against the enemies at our gate even though they're your superiors?
When Marshall law comes and you're forced to enforce curfews, when you're guarding those who are burning books, when you're forcing people to take vaccines they dont feel are safe, when you're "relocating" those who openly exercise their 1st and 2and amendment rights, when the USA you know becomes Nazi Germany, will you "follow orders" and regurgitate "it's for your safety" or will you stand and fight against the enemies at our gate even though they're your superiors?
(4)
(0)
10
10
0
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...
(10)
(0)
LTC Raymond Buenteo
The constitutional legality of such an order is not one that anyone in uniform is equipped to debate. Remember such and action and order from a president will have been vetted extensively through legal minds who are far more equipped to distinguish the constitutional from the unconstitutional of such an order. We aren’t talking shooting women and children. You wear the uniform you are obligated to error on the side of those handing down such an order. As for us retired we are afforded more latitude to error on the side of our political allegiance.
(4)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Capt Gregory Prickett - You have a point; BUT, LTC Raymond Buenteo clearly stated, "We aren't talking shooting somen and children," but rather orders that would (certainly), "... have been vetted EXTENSIVLEY through legal minds," like SJA/JAG and the DOJ's AG's Office. Therefore, refusing to obey such an order would clearly be incorrect. [CAPS adde for emphasis.]
Response to the original question should not be focused on the Jan 6th events as they seem to be. The ISSUE most certainly SHOULD be whether or not orders (ANY orders) have been properly vetted - CLEARED through legal hurdles, or not.
Response to the original question should not be focused on the Jan 6th events as they seem to be. The ISSUE most certainly SHOULD be whether or not orders (ANY orders) have been properly vetted - CLEARED through legal hurdles, or not.
(1)
(0)
SSG Stephen Arnold
Abe did many unconstitutional things that got glossed over in the history books.
Research the creation of states. Consider West Virginia.
Research the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
This list goes on. He drastically weakened state sovereignty, rending the very fabric of the founding of our nation.
Research the creation of states. Consider West Virginia.
Research the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
This list goes on. He drastically weakened state sovereignty, rending the very fabric of the founding of our nation.
(0)
(0)
LTC David Brown
LTC Raymond Buenteo - unless you have people bragging about a “ nice work around” to an unconstitutional order like using OSHA to mandate vaccines.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
Everyone will say "no", but recent events indicate half of you would do so with a smile...
(9)
(0)
LTC David Brown
1/2 of America wasn’t “ rooting for the riot. I was appalled, I have repeatedly stated I detest political violence and those that justify it on either side. Trump should have conceded, period. Having a rally did nothing and I knew it would do nothing and I am a Trump supporter and I know many who are like me.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
Capt Gregory Prickett - You are correct sir, but there was NO order given to the military relative to the case instant (election results) - Not by then President Trump. Any discussions, by then President Trump about the Insurrection Act are moot - didn't happen.
(The NG deployment is a separate issue which I state so any replies to this comment realize I recognzie that.)
(The NG deployment is a separate issue which I state so any replies to this comment realize I recognzie that.)
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
CWO3 (Join to see)
Thanks for remembering the UCMJ, Law of War and Posse Comitatus. The Courts have ruled on the Election. Examples of our our Constitution at work.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
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
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google