4 ms·

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?

lysace 9mo ago
... 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.
- alterom 9mo ago
  BBC article related to technology (legality of video content and government censorship) is clearly antithetical to hacker culture and interests, I guess. Go figure.
  - lysace 9mo ago
    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.
viraptor 9mo ago
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.
- BugsJustFindMe 9mo ago
  > 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.
Jtsummers 9mo ago
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.
- KevinMS 9mo ago
  > 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.
  - Jtsummers 9mo ago
    > 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.
    - KevinMS 9mo ago
      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.
      - Jtsummers 9mo ago
        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.
      - 9mo ago
krapp 9mo ago
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."
- bakies 9mo ago
  What war crime did he say was based?
conartist6 9mo ago
They're not just allowed to disobey illegal orders, they're morally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 9mo ago
  They are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
  - thunky 9mo ago
    How are they supposed to know what's legal? Congress can't even agree if murdering civilians on boats is legal or not.
    - fragmede 9mo ago
      If only there was some basic training for this kind of stuff!
      - thunky 9mo ago
        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.
- silverquiet 9mo ago
  Aren't they required to obey chain-of-command? And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?
  - 9mo ago

lysace 9mo ago

... 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.

alterom 9mo ago
BBC article related to technology (legality of video content and government censorship) is clearly antithetical to hacker culture and interests, I guess. Go figure.
- lysace 9mo ago
  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.

viraptor 9mo ago

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.

BugsJustFindMe 9mo ago
> 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.

Jtsummers 9mo ago

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.

KevinMS 9mo ago
> 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.
- Jtsummers 9mo ago
  > 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.
  - KevinMS 9mo ago
    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.
    - Jtsummers 9mo ago
      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.
    - 9mo ago

krapp 9mo ago

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."

bakies 9mo ago
What war crime did he say was based?

conartist6 9mo ago

They're not just allowed to disobey illegal orders, they're morally obligated to disobey illegal orders.

Eddy_Viscosity2 9mo ago
They are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
- thunky 9mo ago
  How are they supposed to know what's legal? Congress can't even agree if murdering civilians on boats is legal or not.
  - fragmede 9mo ago
    If only there was some basic training for this kind of stuff!
    - thunky 9mo ago
      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.
silverquiet 9mo ago
Aren't they required to obey chain-of-command? And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?
- 9mo ago