Trump

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

56 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You seem to think you've wrapped this package up with a nice little bow tie. Yet, you don't understand the oath beyond the words. Enemies Foreign and Domestic as it pertains to the Constitution. 

U.S. service members take that oath to uphold the Constitution. Under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards AND/OR the Geneva Conventions.

Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or be subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense as we saw with Lt. Calley. 

Would I stand up against an unlawful order. I have. And, a three-star General was relieved not just of his rank, but his service.

You forgot to use the entire oath - check up on it. And, then when you ask if the President gave me an illegal order; I can with utmost confidence tell you; I would tell him to go fuck himself. So, quit trying to use me to cast your limelight. 

Hi Keith,

Re:  service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards AND/OR the Geneva Conventions.

I well remember that is what we were told.  However, IMO 99 44/100% of service members simply do not know just what those are.

How many Gi's have you known who knew what was in the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards AND/OR the Geneva Conventions.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Let me add, that I served when Ike & JFK were in office.  Nothing like the crazy that is there now.

 

 

Edited August 14 by JerryBaumchen

[JoeWeber 2,963]

13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You seem to think you've wrapped this package up with a nice little bow tie. Yet, you don't understand the oath beyond the words. Enemies Foreign and Domestic as it pertains to the Constitution. 

U.S. service members take that oath to uphold the Constitution. Under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards AND/OR the Geneva Conventions.

Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or be subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense as we saw with Lt. Calley. 

Would I stand up against an unlawful order. I have. And, a three-star General was relieved not just of his rank, but his service.

You forgot to use the entire oath - check up on it. And, then when you ask if the President gave me an illegal order; I can with utmost confidence tell you; I would tell him to go fuck himself. So, quit trying to use me to cast your limelight. 

Fine. Then why did you give this glib answer: "I was regular Army, not National Guard. My job was outside the US borders".

So all of that explanation aside, tell us: did the marines deployed to Los Angeles follow lawful orders? Yes, because it was under a defensible, but patently false, pretext? Yes, even if you knew it was to police not protect and you knew that many of your fellows might well go way beyond that if ordered and that any right or wrong would be decided well after the fact in, if there ever was one, a court of law? 

Thanks for the homework and I'm happy you stood up but it is a lot more complicated than the deep details of an oath that most cannot recall or think matters when orders are given. 

My position stands: the police and the military will be the instruments of the undoing of our democracy, if it happens, and nothing in your explanation would prevent that truth.
 

[nigel99 634]

52 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I wasn’t being cute and I’d enjoy, given your reluctance, reading anyone’s defense of your refusal to admit the truth: you would obey the orders because your training and oath demands it.

If the oath was limited to “foreign” your first reply might have been defensible. 

I’m curious as to where you stand on your 2nd amendment for this whole situation? 

It’s sad seeing what’s happening. I don’t think that there will be much meaningful resistance. Because it happens one step at a time. Each little step is not big enough to warrant action by the majority and so you go along with it or a few “radicals” draw the line and get vilified. 

One thing is certain over the next 4 years, the US second amendment is going to be shown to be a poor excuse to leave gun nuts alone, or it’s going to be evidence that it was a truly valuable instrument in preventing tyranny. 

[JoeWeber 2,963]

Just now, nigel99 said:

I’m curious as to where you stand on your 2nd amendment for this whole situation? 

It’s sad seeing what’s happening. I don’t think that there will be much meaningful resistance. Because it happens one step at a time. Each little step is not big enough to warrant action by the majority and so you go along with it or a few “radicals” draw the line and get vilified. 

One thing is certain over the next 4 years, the US second amendment is going to be shown to be a poor excuse to leave gun nuts alone, or it’s going to be evidence that it was a truly valuable instrument in preventing tyranny. 

Our Second Amendment is a misinterpreted joke that any 3rd grader without a dog in the fight would likely read more correctly. No sane person has ever explained to me why, in this case of Constitutional originalism ONLY, tossing out the first two parts and keeping the second two parts was obviously what the framers intended. So to satisfy your curiosity, I take exception to certain interpretations.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

[nigel99 634]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Our Second Amendment is a misinterpreted joke that any 3rd grader without a dog in the fight would likely read more correctly. No sane person has ever explained to me why, in this case of Constitutional originalism ONLY, tossing out the first two parts and keeping the second two parts was obviously what the framers intended. So to satisfy your curiosity, I take exception to certain interpretations.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

By that interpretation, is it reasonable to expect that the population should be starting to assemble an independent militia? 

Interestingly the saying one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is fitting. I have no doubt that the proud boys and ICE thugs would see themselves as fitting that description.

[JoeWeber 2,963]

4 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

By that interpretation, is it reasonable to expect that the population should be starting to assemble an independent militia? 

Interestingly the saying one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is fitting. I have no doubt that the proud boys and ICE thugs would see themselves as fitting that description.

Yes, by that interpretation. That said your typical citizen can't assemble a bike on Christmas Eve so I'd bet they'd take any chance to hide out and play it safe while others saved the world.

[wmw999 2,595]

17 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Thanks for the homework and I'm happy you stood up but it is a lot more complicated than the deep details of an oath that most cannot recall or think matters when orders are given.

Personally I think what’s going on is heinous. Looking at each individual soldier/police officer etc and vilifying them is like what happens when people deal with malfunctions sometimes; in a malfunction, you’re dealing with a realtime situation with a subset of the relevant information.

How many of you would REALLY go whack the woman or guy that you saw seemingly abusing their kid? Or would you figure there’s more to the story that you don’t know?

A frightening thing i see is the description of narrative as being information. In the pre-literate past we largely relied on sagas and word of mouth for information. They led to lots of misunderstanding and most religions. So returning to the narrative as a means of passing on actual information is frightening. 

Probably not permanent, because technology, but still it’ll change the population

Wendy P. 

[nigel99 634]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Yes, by that interpretation. That said your typical citizen can't assemble a bike on Christmas Eve so I'd bet they'd take any chance to hide out and play it safe while others saved the world.

Well on a happier note, at least your king has court jesters at the palace and provides entertainment for the rich and famous. 

“Donald Trump has handed his daughter Ivanka an unexpected job: hosting a UFC cage fight on the White House lawn.“

[JoeWeber 2,963]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

How many of you would REALLY go whack the woman or guy that you saw seemingly abusing their kid? Or would you figure there’s more to the story that you don’t know?

Well, if I saw it I might do something even if that something was wrong. And that is why we shouldn't be sending our military out to see things they have no business seeing.

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

30 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I’m curious as to where you stand on your 2nd amendment for this whole situation? 

It’s sad seeing what’s happening. I don’t think that there will be much meaningful resistance. Because it happens one step at a time. Each little step is not big enough to warrant action by the majority and so you go along with it or a few “radicals” draw the line and get vilified. 

One thing is certain over the next 4 years, the US second amendment is going to be shown to be a poor excuse to leave gun nuts alone, or it’s going to be evidence that it was a truly valuable instrument in preventing tyranny. 

Hi Nigel,

Re:  your 2nd amendment for this whole situation? 

For years I have listened to many, many gun nutz who claim that their guns are to keep himself & his family safe from the gov't. 

I don't give a damn what you have in your gun closet, it is NOT going to be enough when the feds come; which may be closer than ever in my lifetime.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Just been reading about how Trump is pestering the heads of numerous countries to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.  One can only hope that common sense prevails.

[nigel99 634]

13 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Nigel,

Re:  your 2nd amendment for this whole situation? 

For years I have listened to many, many gun nutz who claim that their guns are to keep himself & his family safe from the gov't. 

I don't give a damn what you have in your gun closet, it is NOT going to be enough when the feds come; which may be closer than ever in my lifetime.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Just been reading about how Trump is pestering the heads of numerous countries to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.  One can only hope that common sense prevails.

It’s always amused me too. Your guns aren’t going to be very effective against an Apache helicopter and other tools the government has at its disposal.

Talking of Don the real estate mobster, perhaps the meeting in Alaska is an open house to show Putin what he’s getting given https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/08/13/trump-to-present-minerals-deal-to-putin-in-alaska/

[BIGUN 1,497]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Fine. Then why did you give this glib answer: "I was regular Army, not National Guard. My job was outside the US borders".

It was a factual answer. You were focused on the oath and not the mission of each. Big difference. The Code of Conduct for each is different. Their code of conduct stemmed from Kent State. 

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Our Second Amendment is a misinterpreted joke that any 3rd grader without a dog in the fight would likely read more correctly. No sane person has ever explained to me why, in this case of Constitutional originalism ONLY, tossing out the first two parts and keeping the second two parts was obviously what the framers intended. So to satisfy your curiosity, I take exception to certain interpretations.

How is your dissecting the constitution any different than Trump's version. You get to pick and choose what you like. The constitution needs to remain sacred albeit flawed. The courts are more well versed at interpretations. Your example of the Marines is a good one. The courts stopped them from doing anything more than protecting three federal buildings. Personally, I sing the praises of the ACLU, They help keep things in check. 

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm happy you stood up but it is a lot more complicated than the deep details of an oath that most cannot recall or think matters when orders are given. 

You may not know, but since Calley, the miltiary started giving classes in 1971 to everyone from West Point to Basic training on issuing/following legal vs. illegal orders. In 1974, I went to basic. An attorney from JAG came to give us the class. At the end, he gave us a business card to call if someone issued an orde that you "thought" might be illegal for us to get legal counsel. 

Some soldiers today don't understand why legal is involved at the unit level. It's for this reason.     

[Phil1111 1,189]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

It was a factual answer. You were focused on the oath and not the mission of each. Big difference. The Code of Conduct for each is different. Their code of conduct stemmed from Kent State. 

How is your dissecting the constitution any different than Trump's version. You get to pick and choose what you like. The constitution needs to remain sacred albeit flawed. The courts are more well versed at interpretations. Your example of the Marines is a good one. The courts stopped them from doing anything more than protecting three federal buildings. Personally, I sing the praises of the ACLU, They help keep things in check. 

You may not know, but since Calley, the miltiary started giving classes in 1971 to everyone from West Point to Basic training on issuing/following legal vs. illegal orders. In 1974, I went to basic. An attorney from JAG came to give us the class. At the end, he gave us a business card to call if someone issued an orde that you "thought" might be illegal for us to get legal counsel. 

Some soldiers today don't understand why legal is involved at the unit level. It's for this reason.     

Yep officer.

[BIGUN 1,497]

13 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Yep officer.

Nope. Try again. : ) 

[kallend 2,166]

13 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Keith,

 

How many Gi's have you known who knew what was in the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards AND/OR the Geneva Conventions.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Let me add, that I served when Ike & JFK were in office.  Nothing like the crazy that is there now.

 

 

I'm not sure that the CinC knows.  Or if he knows, he doesn't care.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

14 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

...

PS)  Just been reading about how Trump is pestering the heads of numerous countries to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.  One can only hope that common sense prevails.

Anyone can "nominate" somebody for any of the Nobel prizes.  That means nothing.  The Nobel committees select the winner, and it doesn't matter how many "nominations" someone may have.  We had a chemistry professor here who was quite enamored of himself, and he would get his friends to "nominate" him every year.  He even had on his website "Nominated for the Chemistry Nobel Prize 10 years in a row!!".  All bullshit.  He never won of course.

Also it's considered to be quite gauche to lobby for a Nobel Prize.  Of course "gauche" is Trump's middle name (or one of them).

Edited August 14 by GeorgiaDon

[BIGUN 1,497]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

I'm not sure that the CinC knows.  Or if he knows, he doesn't care.

Both A & B

[JoeWeber 2,963]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

It was a factual answer. You were focused on the oath and not the mission of each. Big difference. The Code of Conduct for each is different. Their code of conduct stemmed from Kent State. 

That's a good point I was intending to make when you came back with just this, so thank you. Their oath: 

“I (state your full name), Do solemnly swear, (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of ______ Against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of _____ and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God”

So yes the Ohio Governor called them in, and no order to fire was ever given according to the investigation. The point you miss is none of that matters as it won't the next time a scared kid in a military uniform fires on citizens, even those armed with Subway Sandwiches, because he was sent there by someone to control the voters who, in your example, where protesting a Federal action to wit Nixon invading Cambodia. And they were there following orders, not visiting admissions.

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

How is your dissecting the constitution any different than Trump's version. You get to pick and choose what you like. The constitution needs to remain sacred albeit flawed. The courts are more well versed at interpretations. Your example of the Marines is a good one. The courts stopped them from doing anything more than protecting three federal buildings. Personally, I sing the praises of the ACLU, They help keep things in check. 

How is my thinking it different? Well, I think it's because my position is honest and not criminally self serving, but thanks for the comparison. In quick explanation, I think the originalist position is as fucking stupid as it is dishonestly applied. I think our Constitution should be seen as a living document that needs thoughtful amendments and measured changes to reflect the times not a silly inconvenience designed to get us to the prayed for to come soon end times.

 

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You may not know, but since Calley, the miltiary started giving classes in 1971 to everyone from West Point to Basic training on issuing/following legal vs. illegal orders. In 1974, I went to basic. An attorney from JAG came to give us the class. At the end, he gave us a business card to call if someone issued an orde that you "thought" might be illegal for us to get legal counsel. 

Some soldiers today don't understand why legal is involved at the unit level. It's for this reason.     

I didn't know that. What I do know is that it'll be cops and soldiers assaulting innocent citizens, our freedoms, and the basic tenants of American democracy, not the girls from Hooters, and they'll be there following someones orders, wearing American Military uniforms and gear, and that a solid percentage of them will not give a shit about the business card they tossed or the lecture they heard because they will be happy to do it. 

[Phil1111 1,189]

54 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's a good point I was intending to make when you came back with just this, so thank you. Their oath: 

“I (state your full name), Do solemnly swear, (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of ______ Against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of _____ and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God”

So yes the Ohio Governor called them in, and no order to fire was ever given according to the investigation. The point you miss is none of that matters as it won't the next time a scared kid in a military uniform fires on citizens, even those armed with Subway Sandwiches, because he was sent there by someone to control the voters who, in your example, where protesting a Federal action to wit Nixon invading Cambodia. And they were there following orders, not visiting admissions.

How is my thinking it different? Well, I think it's because my position is honest and not criminally self serving, but thanks for the comparison. In quick explanation, I think the originalist position is as fucking stupid as it is dishonestly applied. I think our Constitution should be seen as a living document that needs thoughtful amendments and measured changes to reflect the times not a silly inconvenience designed to get us to the prayed for to come soon end times.

 

I didn't know that. What I do know is that it'll be cops and soldiers assaulting innocent citizens, our freedoms, and the basic tenants of American democracy, not the girls from Hooters, and they'll be there following someones orders, wearing American Military uniforms and gear, and that a solid percentage of them will not give a shit about the business card they tossed or the lecture they heard because they will be happy to do it. 

All good points and I referred to Keith as an officer because he seems to have the answers. 

Most cops and military know whats right, lawful and constitutional. But the "solid percentage" is all it takes be it 5, 10 or 20%. Trump's special Quick Reaction Force of 600 is a real concern. Because he could pack it with loyalists for unlawful purpose.

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

All good points and I referred to Keith as an officer because he seems to have the answers. 

Most cops and military know whats right, lawful and constitutional. But the "solid percentage" is all it takes be it 5, 10 or 20%. Trump's special Quick Reaction Force of 600 is a real concern. Because he could pack it with loyalists for unlawful purpose.

Hi Phil,

Re:  Most cops and military know whats right

I agree.

Re:  Most . . .  military know whats . . . constitutional.

This, I doubt.  As Joe said, they will just toss the card in the trash & never give it another thought.

I spent 4 yrs as a GI; I doubt that the thinking has evolved much since.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[GeorgiaDon 385]

It seems to me that a problem with the argument that soldiers take an oath to not obey unlawful orders is that it requires everybody to be able to discern an unlawful order.  If several soldiers are ordered to execute a group of unarmed prisoners, and 19 soldiers refuse the order but 1 obeys the unarmed prisoners will still end up dead.  You need 100% compliance.  An order as extreme as "shoot all the prisoners" may be obviously illegal if it comes from some sergeant, but something less extreme may not be so obvious even if a court were to eventually rule that the act was illegal, and even an extreme act may be of uncertain legality if it comes from the president.  This Supreme Court seems to be taking the position that the President can do anything, even if it violates the plain language of the constitution, and they are immune from prosecution.  In the case of birthright citizenship , for example, their ruling was that people have to comply for now, and maybe eventually they will get around to deciding if the executive order was lawful.  If your career depends on following lawful orders, and the "lawful" part is ambiguous, there will always be people (lots of people) who will choose to follow the order.

[BIGUN 1,497]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I think our Constitution should be seen as a living document that needs thoughtful amendments and measured changes to reflect the times

In the past 30 years; there's been a Democrat in the oval office almost 2/3rds of that time. Yet, no leadership push to amend the constitution. Why is that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Hell, your team can't even package up and send the Gun Responsibility "Law" to their representatives I wrote for that express purpose. So, you get A's for enthusiasm - but, you're flunking in execution. "Casey walked with the strawberry blonde and the band played on."

I kinda like the Hooters Girls suggestion though. 

[JoeWeber 2,963]

18 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

It seems to me that a problem with the argument that soldiers take an oath to not obey unlawful orders is that it requires everybody to be able to discern an unlawful order.  If several soldiers are ordered to execute a group of unarmed prisoners, and 19 soldiers refuse the order but 1 obeys the unarmed prisoners will still end up dead.  You need 100% compliance.  An order as extreme as "shoot all the prisoners" may be obviously illegal if it comes from some sergeant, but something less extreme may not be so obvious even if a court were to eventually rule that the act was illegal, and even an extreme act may be of uncertain legality if it comes from the president.  This Supreme Court seems to be taking the position that the President can do anything, even if it violates the plain language of the constitution, and they are immune from prosecution.  In the case of birthright citizenship , for example, their ruling was that people have to comply for now, and maybe eventually they will get around to deciding if the executive order was lawful.  If your career depends on following lawful orders, and the "lawful" part is ambiguous, there will always be people (lots of people) who will choose to follow the order.

I cannot fathom how this is not obvious to all.

[JoeWeber 2,963]

10 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

In the past 30 years; there's been a Democrat in the oval office almost 2/3rds of that time. Yet, no leadership push to amend the constitution. Why is that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Hell, your team can't even package up and send the Gun Responsibility "Law" to their representatives I wrote for that express purpose. So, you get A's for enthusiasm - but, you're flunking in execution. "Casey walked with the strawberry blonde and the band played on."

I kinda like the Hooters Girls suggestion though. 

Your Gun Responsibility law relies on intelligence, flexibility, and a hard willingness to do what is right even if it costs you. Given that those traits are demonstrably antithetical to most Republican politicians I'd say you have some brass to point out the lefts failings.

[BIGUN 1,497]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Given that those traits are demonstrably antithetical to most Republican politicians I'd say you have some brass to point out the lefts failings.

That's an interesting twist  So, you sent it in to your representatives?