I think it was an irresponsible political stunt prepared by partisans and targeted to a general populace audience unconcerned by consequences to others. YMMVOriginally Posted by Rogar
I think it was an irresponsible political stunt prepared by partisans and targeted to a general populace audience unconcerned by consequences to others. YMMV
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Just as irresponsible and probably moreso for Trump to react with such an inflammatory response. If it were determined that the Democrats' behavior was "seditious"-- which I believe is a gross exaggeration if not a total mischaracterization--it should be handled--discreetly and up the chain of command, exactly as you said is the appropriate way to handle such matters. Not shouting in all caps to the general populace using clearly dangerous words with no rationale or dialogue. But of course, we have long given up on expectations of meaningful dialogue with our Commander-in-Chief.
Pretty good analysis of this situation: https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/polit...tious-behavior
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
I agree that Trump reacts inappropriately more often than not, but I don't see what he said as a threat, but rather a reminder that under specific circumstances following through with the Democrats recommendation can be, and have historically been, lethal.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Trumps words are more likely to be lethal than the democrat rhetoric in this specific instance. My opinion. It's interesting which people Trump considers patriots among his favored felons and our military heroes, POWs, and gold star families get his scorn. I believe it was his words that inspired the phrase, hang Mike Pence.
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
Alan, just to clarify - are you saying that unlawful military orders have never been given? Or that the fact that they are military orders makes them lawful in all circumstances? If a (possibly unhinged) commander tells troops to use live fire on unarmed non-violent citizens, it would be seditious to ignore that order? Because that's what I think I'm hearing, but I do hope I'm wrong.
No, not at all. I'm sure there have been some if not many illegal or improper orders given somewhere within the military chain of command, but I'm not aware of any orders ever found to be illegal given by the Commander In Chief or Secretary of Defense. Perhaps because at that level all orders are vetted by military lawyers prior to being issued.
In the absence of a clearly unlawful order such as your unhinged commander example the UCMJ requires all military orders be considered lawful until judicially ruled otherwise.Or that the fact that they are military orders makes them lawful in all circumstances? If a (possibly unhinged) commander tells troops to use live fire on unarmed non-violent citizens, it would be seditious to ignore that order?
The risk involved in the video in question is that it fails to caution military members of the consequences involved in not following the orders in the event they are found to be lawful. The seditious angle comes into play by encouraging those military members to take it upon themselves to determine if the orders given by the CIC or SecDef are lawful or not, especially without providing examples or guidance regarding what is or is not lawful. Breaking down the military chain of command at its highest level is clearly seditious.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I can see where the legality of orders is a sticky issue, especially when they come from the commander and chief on down through the chain of command. I'd think the more likely cause for disobedience would be ethical or pure superior stupidity, as in maybe Pickett's Charge.
This might be what Jason Crowe and the other s are getting at, but they could be more direct.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a U.S. law named after the historical concept, and it prohibits the use of the U.S. Army and Air Force for domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
Gosh, I was in the Air Force for 4 years 50 some years ago and as a law enforcement specialist had fairly extensive training on Posse Comitatus and the UCMJ, but I swear I had no idea the Air Force even existed in 1878.
But no, I don't think that's what they were getting at, not at all.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Good point. AI says the law was later expanded to include the air force, marines, etc., but still goes by the same name. Basically it appears illegal for the president to use the military as a domestic police force. Whether it is the concept Jason et. al. were promoting or not, it seems like the most likely current issue at hand since Trump may be in potential violation of it, and is hiding behind the Insurrection Act.Gosh, I was in the Air Force for 4 years 50 some years ago and as a law enforcement specialist had fairly extensive training on Posse Comitatus and the UCMJ, but I swear I had no idea the Air Force even existed in 1878.
But no, I don't think that's what they were getting at, not at all.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...-act-explained
What point do you think Jason and his patriot cohorts were intending with their video?
Last edited by Rogar; 11-23-25 at 9:28am.
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
That AI is wrong. The Marines were founded in 1775!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote