"Please reach out to military members" thread wrongly closed

Please reach out to military members you know after Trumps announcement got started in Politics & Elections, with this OP:

It was closed as follows:

This is incorrect.

[emphasis added]

Russian heel is encouraging troops to disobey unlawful orders. That’s not encouraging illegal activity.

Unless you think that an order requiring “shooting and killing unarmed civilians” in the US would ever be a lawful order, this thread closure is predicated on an incorrect understanding of the law. I hope y’all will reopen the thread.

"The Moderator Speaks
Disobedience to orders is punishable under the UCMJ and therefore illegal.

It is against the rules of the SDMB to encourage illegal acts. Therefore I’m closing this.

No warning issued."https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=897382

To say “Disobedience to orders is . . . illegal” is incorrect.

Article 92 of the UCMJ:

“Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces and fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) Violation of a lawful general order or regulation.

(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;

(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and

(c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.

(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.

(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;

(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;

(c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and

(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

(a) That the accused had certain duties;

(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and

(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties."
Violating an order is only punishable under the UCMJ if, inter alia, (1) the order was lawful, and (2) “the accused had a duty to obey the order.”

It seems to me that the OP’s point is that soldiers may receive orders that are unlawful, and which they would have no duty to obey.

Agreed. This is a legitimate topic of discussion and not at all encouraging any illegal behavior. Shooting and killing unarmed civilians would almost certainly be an unlawful order.

Agreed.

reported, to merge similar threads.

It may be that such a post treads on thin ice legally, and the mods don’t want any possibility of liability coming back on the board.

That would be understandable, if that were the reason given.

If mods want to clarify that it is out of an overabundance of caution that they prefer that threads like that not be propagated, I think we can and should accept that.

The actual reason that was given, however, was not correct.

Moderator Note

Two threads on the same topic have been merged.

Snowboarder Bo’s “Agreed” was in response to the posts by Left Hand of Dorkness and iiandyiiii, not the post by faync1 which was from the second thread.

I agree with both OP’s. I sent Jonathan a PM expressing the same.

Is the worry that the board will be accused of telling soldiers not to shoot unarmed civilians? That’s pretty far beyond an abundance of caution, and I don’t think we should accept that.

In normal times, I’d think the concern was hyperbolic. I don’t want to dig too deep into the meat of the matter here, but these aren’t normal times.

Unfortunately, it still seems like a “call to action” which should have been closed anyway. JC’s stated reason is, I agree, super lame.

Closing that thread was a shameful mistake

Right? Just accept what’s going on in the world and don’t talk about it. You know, out of an abundance of caution. On a message board. Where no physical harm can come to anyone by talking about disobeying an unlawful order.

This is exactly the mindset that got the United States into this shit to begin with.

Well, they have to leave board space for the discussion of why it’s not racist to call someone a nigger.

Whether illegal or not, this board has long had a rule against soliciting calls to action, which this clearly is. Thread was properly closed.

A call to action means talking to your family and friends? This technically falls under that rule, but if the rule really means, “Don’t encourage people to talk to family members about not committing war crimes,” we need to change that rule.

If it were a call to write to the president and tell him to stop committing war crimes, it’s still be a bad rule to prevent it. But that’s not what this was.

Inciting rebellion is unlawful under US federal law.

Which is exactly what the closed post was doing. Asking that people request soldiers to refuse to follow orders.

Refuse to follow unlawful orders.

Call to action: Stand still on the escalator.
Call to action: Democrats shouldn’t condone looting.
Call to action: Wear a mask at the grocery store.

The rule has never been enforced in this manner before, and it’s not why the thread was closed. Let’s not invent reasons for an improperly closed thread to be closed, if you’ll forgive my call to action.

Asking people to follow unlawful orders would be equally illegal. Your post is irrelevant.

Good luck to the admins and moderators explaining it to a judge.