Zaid, could you investigate who is bankrolling the billboards that went up outside military posts THE SAME WEEK as the D ‘illegal orders’ video that states:
DID YOU GO AIRBORNE JUST TO PULL SECURITY FOR ICE?
Then on that same billboard a QR code that takes you to this website which gives FAQ advice on refusing ‘illegal orders’:
The billboards are asking military personnel who view it, whether crime crackdown or immigration enforcement duty is worth it, along with a bit of mocking.
Who is funding this? Seems coordinated to the D video.
So, the argument here is that Dems should appear "tough on crime" by promising to investigate crimes years after the fact? Didn't this same promise result in a 2nd Trump win and the pardoning of all the January 6th people?
What makes this a better idea than reminding active service members that they don't need to follow illegal orders? Why not do both? Why are you suggesting a play for optics and rhetoric (party of 'law and order') in the wake of what is obviously state-sanctioned murder of innocent people?
It would be if a conviction were obtained prior to the pardon. But given the unfortunate prevalence of preemptive pardons, and the near-zero-likelihood of a prosecution until there is a transfer of power at the top, this still seems to me a naive, if appealing, suggestion.
They asked a veteran about this and he said the key is people refusing to put others in a position to perform illegal orders. Putting decisions like disobeying orders on the lower ranks is unfair and dangerous. His advice to them was to "weaponize incompetence", as long it doesn't put others at risk.
Troops KNOW that they can refuse inherently illegal orders, as they are trained and informed via the Uniform Code of Military Justice, among other systems. After all, we cannot have a repeat of the My Lai Massacre.
Those members of Congress are encouraging the individual members (via TikTok and Instagram where troops have access in their down time) to bypass the normal chain-of-command and make decisions themselves. You do not “educate” the troops via social media; you go through the proper channels, i.e. up the chain-of-command, through legal channels, via the inspector general complaints, JAG, etc.
Doing otherwise ruptures the chain-of-command—and that is not a good place to be with our military and our country.
I would cite 18 U.S.C. §2387: Activities affecting armed forces generally. If this isn't sedition it is sedition-adjacent, in my opinion.
I agree, in a perfect world where powerful abusers are reliably brought to justice. However, I think we are in an All of the Above situation, where prosecution, refusing orders, quiet quitting and conscientious incompetence are all appropriate.
The problem is the Democrats, too, don’t believe in the rule of law. It’s all a fiasco.
Did you pen a similar article after the Obama killing of al-Awlaki? Or are we going with the standard reasoning that somehow Trump is unique?
Zaid, could you investigate who is bankrolling the billboards that went up outside military posts THE SAME WEEK as the D ‘illegal orders’ video that states:
DID YOU GO AIRBORNE JUST TO PULL SECURITY FOR ICE?
Then on that same billboard a QR code that takes you to this website which gives FAQ advice on refusing ‘illegal orders’:
https://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2025/faq-on-refusing-illegal-orders/
The billboards are asking military personnel who view it, whether crime crackdown or immigration enforcement duty is worth it, along with a bit of mocking.
Who is funding this? Seems coordinated to the D video.
So, the argument here is that Dems should appear "tough on crime" by promising to investigate crimes years after the fact? Didn't this same promise result in a 2nd Trump win and the pardoning of all the January 6th people?
What makes this a better idea than reminding active service members that they don't need to follow illegal orders? Why not do both? Why are you suggesting a play for optics and rhetoric (party of 'law and order') in the wake of what is obviously state-sanctioned murder of innocent people?
This suggestion, while superficially appealing as accountability should be, seems a bit pollyannish, given the pardon power.
Nonetheless, a conviction is still a stain on one's reputation, even if pardoned.
It would be if a conviction were obtained prior to the pardon. But given the unfortunate prevalence of preemptive pardons, and the near-zero-likelihood of a prosecution until there is a transfer of power at the top, this still seems to me a naive, if appealing, suggestion.
They asked a veteran about this and he said the key is people refusing to put others in a position to perform illegal orders. Putting decisions like disobeying orders on the lower ranks is unfair and dangerous. His advice to them was to "weaponize incompetence", as long it doesn't put others at risk.
Troops KNOW that they can refuse inherently illegal orders, as they are trained and informed via the Uniform Code of Military Justice, among other systems. After all, we cannot have a repeat of the My Lai Massacre.
Those members of Congress are encouraging the individual members (via TikTok and Instagram where troops have access in their down time) to bypass the normal chain-of-command and make decisions themselves. You do not “educate” the troops via social media; you go through the proper channels, i.e. up the chain-of-command, through legal channels, via the inspector general complaints, JAG, etc.
Doing otherwise ruptures the chain-of-command—and that is not a good place to be with our military and our country.
I would cite 18 U.S.C. §2387: Activities affecting armed forces generally. If this isn't sedition it is sedition-adjacent, in my opinion.
If Democrats hadn't been starting unnecessary wars, they might have grounds to complain when Republicans do the same thing.
WW2 was our ONLY just and necessary war. Everything else, from 1776 to 2025, was unjustified aggression.
I agree, in a perfect world where powerful abusers are reliably brought to justice. However, I think we are in an All of the Above situation, where prosecution, refusing orders, quiet quitting and conscientious incompetence are all appropriate.