I am so confused, in the video didn't the senator just say that military service members are allowed to disobey illegal orders? Is that sedition?
back
5 comments
No, it's not sedition. Reminding service members about the law is not an act of sedition. Encouraging them to disobey the law could be, but that's not what he and the others did in that video. This is just more pettiness.
> Encouraging them to disobey the law could be, but that's not what he and the others did in that video.
The issue is that service members already know this very well, so when you tell them what they already know, it does seem like they are being encouraged.
> it does seem like they are being encouraged.
Sure, it's encouraging them to obey the law. Encouraging someone to follow the law cannot be sedition.
I wonder what you would have thought if it was a bunch of "maga" republicans releasing this video about military service members "had the duty to refuse unlawful orders" when Biden was president. Be honest with yourself.
the fact you think most people would have problems with that is upsetting...
I'd have no problem with it. It's a factual statement, it is their duty to refuse unlawful orders. Now, if they said to disobey specific orders that were in fact lawful that would be another matter, but that didn't happen with the video in question.
> Be honest with yourself.
So far you're the one pushing into dishonesty here, or at least disingenuity. The video did not amount to sedition, even though you suggest it did. You can't point out any actual sedition, only hint at the possibility of it and throw out some whataboutism bullshit. Your comments don't speak well of your character.
They're not just allowed to disobey illegal orders, they're morally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
They are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
How are they supposed to know what's legal?
Congress can't even agree if murdering civilians on boats is legal or not.
If only there was some basic training for this kind of stuff!
Yes hopefully Congress gets the basic training they desperately need.
But seriously. Should soldiers be refusing to murder civilians on boats? If the law is clear (which I think it is) and they should be refusing why aren't they?
The answer of course is that they're being put in an impossible situation. Pinning the responsibility on them, because they took basic training, to interpret the law and go against the majority of the US govt at huge personal risk is just absurd.
Maybe instead the government should get their head out of their ass and do something themselves beyond trying to pass the buck via a stupid tv ad.
Aren't they required to obey chain-of-command? And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?
"Aren't they required to obey chain-of-command?"
If an order is legal, yes. Not if an order is illegal. If a superior officer orders a private to shoot unarmed civilians or commit some other war crime, the private is supposed to refuse the order. They are not protected by a "just following orders" defense.
"And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?"
Sure. But that does not excuse committing war crimes or otherwise knowingly following illegal orders.
Most of the time, the presumption is that illegal orders will be issued infrequently and by rogue elements in the armed forces -- so disobeying may have unpleasant immediate consequences (say, get thrown in the brig) but long-term they should prevail.
Right now? Well... that's the problem. But if significant numbers of the armed forces refused illegal orders, there's little that the administration can do. Which is why they've been cleaning house to kick out anybody at the top who might push back.
They're only required to obey lawful orders. An order to massacre a village would not be lawful, to pick an extreme (but historical) example. Following such an order is a crime in itself, they should disobey it.
Doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them not being thrown into prison for executing an illegal order?
Yeah, no. He (and others) said what's already officially in the military rules. People are freaking out because of when it happened and what was implied... but good luck proving any of it was illegal.
> People are freaking out because of when it happened and what was implied
No, certain people are freaking out because those people are grifters with no motivating beliefs whatsoever other than to enrich themselves, and who will do and say literally anything from one day to the next as long as it benefits them at someone else's expense.
You have to remember that our current Secretary of Defense is a former Fox And friends cohost with Nazi tattoos who thinks war crimes are "based."
What war crime did he say was based?
... and the story is at least temporarily flagged away from the front page. I guess it's a brand risk or worse for YC, in the brand new hyper-american world.
Yes, I understand that the system is designed for YC to let some people flag posts and to let YC later unflag posts at their privilege.
BBC article related to technology (legality of video content and government censorship) is clearly antithetical to hacker culture and interests, I guess.
Go figure.
Lots of asshole "might is right" apologists from the homeland on HN lately, yes. They have no moral standing. Interestingly they do seem to desire one.