im still not understanding how what they said was wrong. they didnt say to disobey trump. they said the military took an oath to follow the constitution and they have a duty to not follow illegal orders. werent they stating the obvious? and isnt the response from trump and his sycophants an acknowledgement that he has indeed issued illegal orders? why else would they be getting so butt-hurt over the video? also, trump already got a bunch of people killed with his rhetoric. a few of his own supporters died after he incited them to insurrection on january 6th.
Typical maga playbook, "act" like what they're (Dems) doing is wrong, go on fox and tell the lie and then act like they are going to do something until the next news cycle comes in, wash, rinse and repeat for the maggats
It's obvious why they're butt-hurt, because the suggestion of people thinking for themselves, or criticizing, or not falling in line will always be threatening to this regime. (I know you know this, but just to say it out loud.) They want compliance more than any other single policy objective. But to play the advocate for an absolutely rotten-egg-smelling devil: You could say the video was, in essence, asking military members to question every order they receive moving forward. "Is this one a legit one?" Normally, the fact that they can disobey stays in the fine print, and most enlisted folks aren't constitutional law scholars. While everything the video said was factually true, we don't normally have politicians addressing enlisted troops in this way. I'm sure it would, to most presidents, feel like an end-around that suggests they aren't fit to lead. For me personally, the vid was absolutely an appropriate message in the current climate and context. I don't think it would rise to treason or anything else remotely illegal, even in a conservative court context. I do wonder if those particular members of congress have heard something about what's coming next.
It's absolutely unclear whether this admin has asked the military to do anything illegal, but they're obviously pushing boundaries, and some military personnel are uncertain whether they're carrying out legal or illegal orders. In that context, the recent reminder IS important... one that many people probably aren't even aware of: the US military has a duty to refuse illegal orders from anyone, including the POTUS. What was stated in the video was exactly what military law prescribes. Now, I understand some may view this as a political move. But if so, the appropriate response should be a counter-political statement, not calling to hang these lawmakers and threatening to recall an elected senator back to the Navy to face military justice under this admin. That crosses a line to political prosecution, anti-free speech, and anti-American (we debate, not prosecute or KILL our political rivals). FAQ on Refusing Illegal Orders - Military Law Task Force
Trump has gotten tons of people killed already. As Epstein said "Not one decent cell" in his body. He is a full-on sociopath. Why else do you think he idolizes Hitler, Putin, and Kim Jung Un.
Doesn't feel like ambiguity anymore. It is murder. Hegseth pushed a legally dubious new category to target so-called narco terrorists. But one thing is not unclear: you cannot kill survivors. That is illegal. WP and CNN reported that Hegseth ordered the killing of survivors in the 9/2 strike on a small boat off Venezuela. Congress needs to dig into this immediately. If true, it is a war crime. The American public should not tolerate war crimes. Statement of Former JAGs (military attorneys) Working Group: former-jag-working-group-no-quarter-statement.pdf 29 November 2025 Yesterday, the Washington Post and CNN reported that the Secretary of Defense personally issued orders to “kill everybody” aboard a civilian vessel suspected of narcotra icking. The attack on 2 September 2025 targeted a vessel carrying 11 civilians and, allegedly, an unknown quantity of drugs. The first strike resulted in near-total destruction of the vessel. However, two survivors were apparently observed via surveillance video clinging to wreckage, whereupon the commander directing the operation ordered a second strike. The second strike killed both survivors. The Former JAGs Working Group unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both. ,,, We also advise our fellow citizens that orders like those described above are the kinds of “patently illegal orders” all military members have a duty to disobey. Since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are “patently illegal,” anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both.
