Six Democrat Senators say do not follow "Illegal "orders

[SilentFeathers]

By the way, nothing will happen to these 6 people when it comes to them being charge or sanctioned in any way.

Pam Bondi will likely be replaced before any of the seditious 6 will be held accountable for any wrong-doing.

[Raskolnikov]

Didn't members of the military who disobeyed illegal orders of mandatory vaccination during covid ultimately get fired? Down is up, wrong is right, evil is good...

[T Smith]

Posted by Rizotto (here)
Isn't taught in military schools to NOT obey illegal orders? Anybody learned anything from the outcome of the Nuremberg trials?
"I was just following orders" turned out to not be a valid excuse for criminal actions.

Agree. But the problem is when the interpretation of so-call illegal orders becomes subjective. Or political. An entire political party--and perhaps even half the population--may disagree with, say, orders to deport illegal persons in the country. But those people are illegal inhabitants, per the law, and until such time when the law is modified or changed, the order to deport them for the crime of being illegally in the country is not an illegal order. It's a lawful order. It may be a politically unpopular order, but not an illegal one.

We can assess and debate any other so-called illegal orders as they come. And I'll be the first to jump on the call to check any such order from authorities in either political party that crosses the line. But I truly do not believe those are the type of orders motivating the impetus of the insurrection the six power brokers on the left are calling for. They are essentially calling (or planting the seeds) for an insurrection against the political policies of the legal government.

Once you begin encouraging military to not to obey politically unpopular policies, we will surely find ourselves on a slippery slope to unrest, chaos, even civil war.

[Rizotto]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Rizotto (here)
Isn't taught in military schools to NOT obey illegal orders? Anybody learned anything from the outcome of the Nuremberg trials?
"I was just following orders" turned out to not be a valid excuse for criminal actions.

Agree. But the problem is when the interpretation of so-call illegal orders becomes subjective. Or political. An entire political party--and perhaps even half the population--may disagree with, say, orders to deport illegal persons in the country. But those people are illegal inhabitants, per the law, and until such time when the law is modified or changed, the order to deport them for the crime of being illegally in the country is not an illegal order. It's a lawful order. It may be a politically unpopular order, but not an illegal one.

We can assess and debate any other so-called illegal orders as they come. And I'll be the first to jump on the call to check any such order from authorities in either political party that crosses the line. But I truly do not believe those are the type of orders motivating the impetus of the insurrection the six power brokers on the left are calling for. They are essentially calling (or planting the seeds) for an insurrection against the political policies of the legal government.

Once you begin encouraging military to not to obey politically unpopular policies, we will surely find ourselves on a slippery slope to unrest, chaos, even civil war.

Which military orders exactly are the 6 politicians claiming to be illegal? (I should have asked that clarification at the beginning!) I assumed it was the order to attack civilian boats off the Venezuela coast. But it could be the order to bomb Iran this past June, without any provocation? Or any of the extra-judicial assassinations the CIA is infamous for? Several commentators on this thread seem to be discussing something else than military orders.

Of course, the military has little say on policy decisions, but they do have to follow a code of conduct for military attacks, probably a USA military code, in addition to international law.

At least some military personnel are aware of the legal requirements. Recently a USA admiral who had been in charge of the operation to bomb boats off Venezuela's coast has resigned from his position:

US Admiral Resigns Amid Unprecedented Escalation Against Venezuela, Boat Bombing Continues
"A US Navy Admiral and Commander of US Southern Command resigned unexpectedly—a result of tensions with the War Department over operations in his theater of command—namely Venezuela. Additionally, a fourth, and fifth boat of unidentified sailors were executed by US drone or air strike on the high seas between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago."
(Full article at link below)
https://www.worldatlarge.news/2025/1...ing-continues/

[Rizotto]

https://phys.org/news/2025-11-obey-l...d-illegal.html

November 22, 2025

Just follow orders or obey the law? What US troops told us about refusing illegal commands

As the Trump administration carries out what many observers say are illegal military strikes against vessels in the Caribbean allegedly smuggling drugs, six Democratic members of Congress issued a video on Nov. 18, 2025, telling the military "You can refuse illegal orders" and "You must refuse illegal orders."

The lawmakers have all served either in the military or the intelligence community. Their message sparked a furious response on social media from President Donald Trump, who called the legislators' action "seditious behavior, punishable by death."

One of the lawmakers, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, told The New York Times that she had heard from troops currently serving that they were worried about their own liability in actions such as the ones in the Caribbean.

This is not the first time Trump has put members of the military in situations whose legality has been questioned. But a large percentage of service members understand their duty to follow the law in such a difficult moment.

We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so.

The ethical dilemma

With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard—along with federal law enforcement—into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.

Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, Chicago and other cities to quell largely peaceful protests or enforce immigration laws.

When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal?

The question may already be affecting troop morale. "The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring," a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. "This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all."

Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind—so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey "manifestly unlawful" orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold.

Compelled to disobey

U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, 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 or the Geneva Conventions.

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

Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would "obey any order." Only 9% "didn't know," and only 2% had "no comment."

When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were "obviously wrong," "obviously criminal" or "obviously unconstitutional."

Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that "orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal—they're immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty."

Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.

The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was "harming civilians," while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as "torturing prisoners" and "harming U.S. troops."

One wrote that "an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process."

Soldiers, not lawyers

But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance.

Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law.

Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S.

"Trump will issue illegal orders," wrote one respondent. "The new laws will allow it," wrote another. A third wrote, "We are not required to obey such laws."

Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they'd disobey "oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution" or an order for "use of the military to carry out deportations."

Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders—such as torture—is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general.

This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law.

Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel.

This finding was also borne out in our survey.

When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points.

Drawing the line

As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes.

The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on "manifestly unlawful orders" before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders.

When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order.

But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%.

While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable.

Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one.

Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city.

The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, "becoming violently ill."

Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey—even indirectly—others can more easily find the courage to do the same.

Whitehead's research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.

The initial results of our survey—coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline—suggest American men and women in uniform don't want to obey unlawful orders.

Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line.

[jaybee]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
By the way, nothing will happen to these 6 people when it comes to them being charge or sanctioned in any way.

Pam Bondi will likely be replaced before any of the seditious 6 will be held accountable for any wrong-doing.

I'm sure you noted that one of the six said, explicitly.... (@33 secs).....'and know that we have your back'

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jJtRLsRWsac

Assuring all the officials, service people and key figures that NOTHING will happen to them if they refuse orders from the Trump Administration - in other words they have the cooperation of the (infiltrated) judiciary - from top to bottom and just the other day the James Comey and Letitia James indictment were dismissedby a democrat appointed judge...

I think this latest move is because they know Trump's getting very frustrated with the lack of action when it comes to prosecutions and thinking of bringing in Military Tribunals to circumvent the whole corrupted judiciary - when these people say...'we've got your back'...they really mean it - and have the organizations involved in their control... maybe ONLY Military Tribunals can by~pass their strangle hold on the law and it's application...?

No one from the top to the bottom is getting 'done' because it's all under the Deep State Globalist's control... well some people are getting 'done' like Tina Peters for example - but only those who threaten The Agenda...

Nothing new under the sun.....?

[jaybee]

Posted by Mike (here)


In a very real way, what we're up against is a form of linguistic sorcery, not just word games or weaponized language.

And it truly is an ancient form of mental warfare. Majik.

'linguistic sorcery' is a very helpful way to describe what's happening and the majority? of the Public appear to be under it's spell in varying degrees....via the MSM but also the creeping influence over the Internet - via paid influencers...(etc)

it's amazing how all pervading and successful (although the impression of success is part of the 'spell') the anti Trump PSYOP is - because he is pushing in the opposite direction of the Deep State Globalists - trying to lift America out of it's covertly organized decline ....

The main thrust of the Spell at the moment IMO is to split the MAGA movement and take over the House and Senate at the Mid Term elections... preparing the ground for the inevitable election rigging -

there's a saying - 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'....and Trump Voters being manipulated into withdrawing their support (as if there's a viable alternative at the moment) shouldn't cut off their nose to spite their face...

[T Smith]

Posted by Rizotto (here)

Which military orders exactly are the 6 politicians claiming to be illegal? (I should have asked that clarification at the beginning!) I assumed it was the order to attack civilian boats off the Venezuela coast. But it could be the order to bomb Iran this past June, without any provocation? Or any of the extra-judicial assassinations the CIA is infamous for? Several commentators on this thread seem to be discussing something else than military orders.

That's just it. Despite the article you cite above, which implies cause and justification for a call to mutiny, they aren't suggesting the military refuse to obey any one specific order--they're keeping the suggestion intentionally vague, which casts a wide umbrella over subjective interpretation, and into the dubious territory of political disagreement.

If these six came out and specifically said something like, "you don't have to follow orders to bomb innocent civilians,"--although arguably an unprecedented public provocation--that would be something we could discuss/debate. But then again, every US President since Kennedy has issued those kind of orders; what exactly makes Trump's orders different--or something that would justify mutiny against this administration that wasn't justified with previous administrations?

To be clear, I don't agree with US military intervention at all--from Vietnam to Iraq, to enabling Israel (which is committing illegal orders in droves, and by the day)--all of these atrocities make the alleged US drone strike against Venezuela look like popping a pimple relative to stepping on a landmine. Besides this, there are mechanisms in place Congress can pursue legally to rectify the Commander in Chief's alleged illegal action that doesn't entail a blanket call for mutiny. What we're seeing unfold with the opposition party looks more like a political insurrection ploy rather than a legitimate concern about so-called illegal orders issued by the Commander in Chief.

Just my take...
.

[Raskolnikov]

It's purposely misleading. They're keeping it vague and open to interpretation with the express intent of triggering some of the hopelessly addled woke mob that made it into the military who've been hypnotised by the spell of language inversion. For them, everything Trump says is a lie because he's Hitler so they're inviting them to give in to the anger that lies just beneath the surface and then feel completely justified in doing so. If woke is anything, it's angry. So they're sowing the seeds of division within our military and giving them the go ahead for refusing any orders that don't agree with their idealogy, which, by the way, is everything that comes out of Trump's mouth.

[Raskolnikov]

Former CIA officer, Elissa Slotkin, admitting she's "not aware of things that are illegal" concerning Trump's actions.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=92wJ9htlqws

I wonder why they keep referencing Nuremburg when telling the troops to disobey Trump...

[thepainterdoug]

wait! are we talking about Bill and our are seditious 6 or the story in the news?

happy thanksgiving all
pd

[JackMcThorn]

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)
I wonder why they keep referencing Nuremburg when telling the troops to disobey Trump...

In case you are not asking a rhetorical question it is because the left thinks Trump is a dictator or a nazi or the like. It's kind of funny that left, without a basis in fact, resorts to name-calling; the weakest action regarding any disagreement.

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by JackMcThorn (here)

Posted by Raskolnikov (here)
I wonder why they keep referencing Nuremburg when telling the troops to disobey Trump...

In case you are not asking a rhetorical question it is because the left thinks Trump is a dictator or a nazi or the like. It's kind of funny that left, without a basis in fact, resorts to name-calling; the weakest action regarding any disagreement.

Thanks. Yes, that was sarcasm. The constant reference to Nuremburg when encouraging the troops to disobey Trump is a level of manipulative coercion and deceptive propaganda unseen even in Trump's first term. They just keep smacking the public in the face with "Trump is Hitler" and it's time for Nuremburg 2.0 They've really perfected their craft:

[East Sun]

Hi Doug
May I ask what the cross figure in your logo/symbol means?



Happy Thanksgiving! everyone...!

[thepainterdoug]

Hi East Sun. that illustration I made as the logo of my Musical www.Hypnotta.com Its an angelic spirit being. it relates to my show which is yet to be produced.
i like it and thought it would make a good logo here as well

[SilentFeathers]

Ironically right after these devious 6 tell the military not to follow Trumps "Illegal" orders, 2 National Guardsmen are shot in DC.....hmmmm, coincidence?????

I wonder if these seditious 6 are proud of themselves and laughing about this.

This may be the beginning of a series of shootings like this.....

[Raskolnikov]

I really appreciate Stephen Miller's no nonsense approach. Apologies, I don't know why I couldn't find a better video of this, YT censorship? But this is excellent and worth a listen.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j09ZvWp5-o8

[SilentFeathers]

This is from just a couple of days ago from one of these 6 traitor idiots....

Here is Senator Slotkin just a few days ago claiming the National Guard was about to start shooting at American civilians.

An insane and dangerous lie.

Now, two troops were shot in Washington, D.C.

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/

[SilentFeathers]

That video these 6 evil scumbags put out was a psychological trigger and they absolutely are not stupid and know exactly what they've done.

....and I'm not holding my breath for Bondi to do anything, she's pretty much about useless.

Things are escalating and what is another issue is that tomorrow we have parades and all kinds of other gatherings going on, then Friday is the largest shopping day of the year. These 6 scumbags know exactly what they've done and their timing is no accident. This is beyond criminal, it's downright demonic and evil.

People need to watch their backs tomorrow bigtime! (and the days following). I see no way to de-escalate what's coming. Sh*ts about to hit the fan in my opinion.

[jaybee]

~
~

Alex Jones getting to the heart of the matter (as usual).....

BREAKING:
GLOBAL EXCLUSIVE: Elements Of The CIA Are Working With Democrats To Launch A Violent Coup Against President Trump & The American People!

WATCH: The Leader Of The Seditious Six Has Been Identified!!!

Former CIA Director John Brennan is the man in charge of laying the groundwork for a new ultra-violent American civil war that is designed to not only drive President Trump from office, but to collapse the American republic. Alex Jones breaks the latest:

Oh boy... Alex does not pull any punches...video on link...




‘Seditious Six’ Democrats Freak Out Over FBI Investigation