No, the post was encouraging the military to NOT follow UNLAWFUL orders. In other words, to uphold their sworn duty to the constitution to PROTECT the citizens of this country instead of summarily executing by obeying illegal orders.
The thread should not have been shut down.
I think that the judiciary would start with Facebook and Twitter where people are suggesting actual unlawful rebellion before they found their way here. I am sure that a judge would agree that asking anyone not to break the law doesn’t break the law.
Left Hand of Dorkness has already made most of the replies that I would have made; but I would add that the closed OP was not a call to action, but the opposite; it was a call to inaction. That OP called on soldiers to refuse to act if issued an unlawful order that they had no duty to obey.
Yeah, bullshit thread closing.
Well, clearly I disagree. And continue to do so.
I looked it up under the mutiny guidelines in the UCMJ this morning.
Yes, following unlawful orders is legal. But Russian heel’s OP makes an assumption that the orders would be illegal and that’s not a jump I’m willing to make in Great Debates or Politics & Elections.
If the phrasing had been ‘if those orders are unlawful you don’t need to follow them’ or something similar I’d have looked at it. But Russian heel’s OP makes a hugely and unwarranted leap in logic in assuming they would be. There are many examples of soldiers - US and otherwise - shooting on civilians in rebellion or other forms of civil disorder. The Civil War is merely the most famous example of such. There are others.
Remember, people, in these trying times as my city of Charleston begins to put itself base together, that not everything Trump does may be illegal regardless of your opinion of the man. I hate him and work for his defeat everyday I’m here on Earth and I hope you do, as well.
But my responsibility to the board requires me to follow the rules. That OK was clean if - and only if - you accept that Russian Heel’s proposition that firing on civilians is a war crime and would be held illegal. I’m not willing to make that assumption at the risk of the board.
There are plenty of cases of soldiers convicted of crimes because “They were just following orders.”
Can you link to what you read?
Refuse to follow UNLAWFUL orders.
That is the opposite of rebellion.
You’ve missed a crucial word in his OP. He’s not talking about firing on civilians, he’s talking about firing on unarmed civilians.
It is always a war crime for military units to intentionally target unarmed civilians.
Agreed.
And as others have noted, it’s pretty hard to believe that a call not to break the law would be interpreted as violating the law.
He did not say family and friends. He said anyone you know in the military. It is unabashedly a call to action.
And FYI, russian heel got another thread closed a month ago by JC that was calling for a military coup to overthrow Trump. That may have coloured JC’s moderating.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=894986
He specifically said “unarmed civilians”. I served in the military and I can’t conceive of a lawful order to shoot down unarmed civilians. That’s very obviously an unlawful order. If you disagree, what possible situation could such an order be lawful?
This explanation ignores that the post in question specified “unarmed civilians”. I think you’re very wrong here and I hope you reconsider.
The slightest threat of any sort of legal action, and the owners of the board will shut it down.
Someone at wherever this place is currently owned gets an injunction or anything like that about a thread that is encouraging military members to refuse orders, and it’s not going to matter how justified the plea is. They will simply pull the plug.
As I said in another thread, just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t mean it is the wisest course of action. This board is not a soapbox or a political bullhorn.
I’m sure that if a thread came up in great debates or even general questions about when an order can be questioned or disobeyed, that’d be fine.
The thread in question was a call to action though, and one on controversial legal grounds.
Again, the ground isn’t controversial: shooting unarmed civilians is a war crime. The idea that they might get an injunction because of a thread like this is completely unrealistic.
Although the OP was a little hysterical in tone, and based on a premise that is unlikely in the extreme (that soldiers will be given an order to shoot and kill unarmed civilians), the gist of the post was simply this:
Soldiers, in the course of your duties you may be given an unlawful order. You are not obligated to carry out unlawful orders; please do not do so.
That is all the OP said, it is accurate, and there is nothing wrong with saying it
If this is about the board’s mortal terror of legal action, then at least that’s a coherent explanation. That seems incredibly remote, but that’s much more reasonable and coherent than the suggestion that there’s any possible whiff of illegality in urging that soldiers not shoot unarmed civilians.
Jonathan Chance routinely shows that he is a terrible moderator incapable of handling those forums. I don’t know why anyone is surprised.
None of your examples are a call to action.
While the SCOTUS has ruled that the confederacy was never a nation, just a part of the US under rebellion, I don’t believe the confederate solders were ever classified as civilians, but members of the army and navy, usually of a state. So I don’t think you can make the case that the union solders shot at civilians.
If this board shuts down discussion of unlawful orders to the military to shoot unarmed civilians because of fear of legal action, the board doesn’t deserve to exist.
This is utter and shameful cowardice.