- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/20/25 at 10:59 am to SlowFlowPro
What unlawful order was given?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
They were asking people that they should follow the law, which is correct in their words. They weren’t being seditious in their wording which is why they couldn’t be prosecuted as they showed no intent for anything else. Now there is not a person who could listen to that and actually believe they were not pushing a different narrative but were definitely within the borders on verbiage. We haven’t quite got to the Minority Report status yet
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:00 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
The point of the message is to be on the look out for illegal orders. There is nothing illegal about warning service members to be wary of illegal orders.
Willful ignorance is not an admirable quality. quote:
There can be absolutely nothing wrong with imploring the military to continue to defend the Constitution. I don't know why you're pretending otherwise, except to troll.
There was no reason for this PSA. Who is the arbiter of an illegal order? It’s not even a thinly veiled threat. Quit being obtuse because it’s what you need for your “side.”
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:00 am to Sailjuggernaut
quote:
What unlawful order was given?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:01 am to Nosevens
quote:
They weren’t being seditious in their wording which is why they couldn’t be prosecuted as they showed no intent for anything else. Now there is not a person who could listen to that and actually believe they were not pushing a different narrative but were definitely within the borders on verbiage. We haven’t quite got to the Minority Report status yet
Provocative political speech is one of the biggest reasons for the 1st Amendment.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:01 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Say what again?
What did the courts say about sending in the guard? You said, in this thread, the guard should have disobeyed the order. Did the courts agree with you? Uh. Oh. Roger is seditious.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
You might possibly be the worst thing ever to slither out of a vag.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:01 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Of course it is.
WHERE IS THE SEDITION?
Figured after asking a half dozen times I need to make the print large for you people.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:02 am to SallysHuman
quote:
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
Federalizing the guard, yes.
It was a tactical error on his part.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
If they are officers or retired they still fall under the UCMJ and they all know as veterans they are undermining the Commander in Chief.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:02 am to Bunk Moreland
Honestly, they should be tried for inciting a mutiny
quote:
10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
quote:
(a)Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2)with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3)fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b)A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 11:04 am
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:02 am to Nurbis
quote:
The military kills people. In a lot of cases, whether or not it is legal depends on who gave the order.
If a family gets droned in Afghanistan, that is just a mistake, but not illegal because it was ordered by commanding officers.
The military flies into another country without that country's knowledge, storms into a home, and guns down unarmed people. That order is legal because it came from the president.
Should a soldier decide for themselves that those orders are illegal because they are killing unarmed people?
Correct. I don't know if it's sedition or not, but it's certainly reckless. They are soldiers; not constitutional scholars.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:02 am to AlterDWI
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:02 am to BBONDS25
quote:
What did the courts say about sending in the guard?
WHERE IS THE SEDITION?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:03 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They said "FOLLOW THE LAW and CONSTITUTION."
Cool. Based on what? These are soldiers, not Lake Charles ambulance chasers. Should they follow the orders of the commander in chief as they are commisioned to do, or wait for the inevitable Boasberg injunction? Maybe hold off until the SCOTUS can chime in?
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:04 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Cool. Based on what?
The law and the constitution. That was fricking easy
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:04 am to hawgfaninc
Thats a good one. They locked Tina Peters up for this.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:04 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Federalizing the guard, yes. It was a tactical error on his part.
You said they weren't picking or delineating sides.
They were.
Their PSA crossed a line with that statement.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And that's also irrelevant to the discussion of sedition.
quote:
I'm just preemptively avoiding irrelevant digressions that aren't necessary for the discussion at hand.
quote:
Specific examples are not necessary when discussing a concept, generally. It's a diversion to create irrelevant digression.
Nope, it's completely relevant.
quote:
Illegal ones.
Such as?
Google AI states that "sedition is overt behavior, such as speech, writing, or organizing, that aims to promote rebellion against an established government or authority."
Urging the military to disobey the Commander in Chief is seditious behavior.
The oath of enlistment states:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
What unlawful orders has President Trump given to the military that need to be disobeyed? Be specific. It's completely relevant to an accusation of giving unlawful orders.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 11:07 am
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News