Whud dey says 'bout a'hangen???

What the dims are calling for seems to easily rise to the level of sedition. Whether what they've done rises to the level of treason or not, I can't say since I'm not a legal scholar, lawyer, judge, whatever. At a minimum though, if serving in congress, they should be expelled imo.

Those dems swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and are now calling for the military and intelligence communities to ignore it.

Another lie from conservatives. Democrats are telling people in the military to obey the law.

The unhinged Right is obviously confused. The people in question are simply reminding the troops they are not to follow illegal orders. Nothing was said regarding legal orders. When I was in, posters on military barracks bulletin boards said much the same thing. Does the Right want the military to try adopting the Nuremberg defense that "we were just following orders"?

That's what fascist ice goons will probably say when they're arrested for their crimes

Your "fascist ice goons" are enforcing Federal laws that were passed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Your issue is with Congress passing laws that you don't agree with.
Or is it laws in general you don't agree with?

What crimes? Enforcing the Federal law?
Does your not agreeing with those Federal laws make their enforcement a crime?

Refusing due process.

"simply reminding"
Every marketing expert knows that "simply reminding" an audience is a very useful persuasive tool, especially when the small print requires an electron microscope to read, and a refresher course in military law is AWOL in the presentation.

Name the lie, please.

By refusing to obey unlawful orders they are upholding the Constitution.

Military personnel have the right and obligation to disobey an unlawful order. We are taught that in basic training.
BUT, you better have ALL of your ducks in in a row to defend your decision when you are brought to a hearing or Court-Martial.

Oh hey, Viki, care remind everyone what the UCMJ says verbatim about lawful orders?

How about the servicemembers' Oath of Enlistment?

Oh, also, what's that thing the 5th Amendment says about deprivation of life, liberty and property?

So, what would happen to a service member who disobeys an order simply because he or she does not politically of ideologically agree with the Commander-in-Chief?
I'm certain the UCMJ has a paragraph or two on that scenario.
Those Congressional veterans failed to add that "no-no" to their "simple reminder" of the law to active duty and reserve military members.

Speaking of obfuscating, a service member who "disobeys an order simply because he or she does not politically of [sic] ideologically agree with the Commander-in-Chief" isn't at all the same thing as refusing an unlawful order -so maybe drop that gambit.

Further, is it a failure on the Congress members' part not to "add that 'no-no' to their 'simple reminder' of the law to active duty and reserve military members" when it's the obligation of both active and reserve personnel to, at the very least, be sufficiently knowledgeable of the Constitution, conversant with the UCMJ to uphold the Oath they knowingly took when they entered the military? Seriously, if it's taught in basic training that "military personnel have the right and obligation to disobey an unlawful order," is it not incumbent upon said personnel to know what constitutes an unlawful order?

If such is the case, " when it's the obligation of both active and reserve personnel to, at the very least, be sufficiently knowledgeable of the Constitution, conversant with the UCMJ to uphold the Oath they knowingly took when they entered the military?" then why would Congressional Democrats consider it incumbent to communicate a simple "reminder" of the law, as stated in the UCMJ, to current military members?

For the same reason parents tell children not to touch the stove.

Gotcha. This foray of parentally astute Democrat members of Congress expressing their nurturing need to keep their gullible military children properly informed of what they already know, was indeed a selfless act of service and duty to the nation.

"Gullible military children"... your words, not mine.

But let's expand on that; also your words: "Military personnel have the right and obligation to disobey an unlawful order. We are taught that in basic training." Okay, so... if there's no danger of an unlawful order being obeyed, there's no need to include training concerning duty to disobey. Now, does that mean that the aforementioned Congressmembers were acting out of the kindness of their hearts? Maybe a little.

There's also the probabilities that their actions were both a subtle reminder to service personnel there are consequences for obeying an unlawful order and a calculated gambit aimed at provoking the current head of the military into demonstrating his disregard for the Constitution, thirst for dictatorial power, desire to have anyone who speaks out in favor of rule of law and/or against his dishonestly self-alleged total authority executed -if it was the latter, they nailed it.

And, if the latter, as a li'l bit of maybe unintended bonus, they drew all the people who would nod along, defend, repeat calls for execution over reminders of the law into the light.

Xiao is absolutely correct.

I want you to think about your statement for a few moments, reflect on the fact that you're advocating expulsion of Congressmembers for advising people to uphold the law, reminding people of their duty to ignore unlawful directives.

Service members who refuse to obey an UNLAWFUL ORDER will be Court-Martial and be required to prove how or by what means and standards the order was indeed UNLAWFUL.
The "helpful" Dem representatives excluded that bit of information from the dimwits who will run with their "patriotic" advice to disobey in ignorance.

A military with any integrity won't issue an unlawful order in the first place.

Yup, that goes without saying, but you are generalizing.
"A military" is composed of individuals almost all of whom are in a position to issue an order at one time or another.
The UCMJ applies to all military personnel from a private to the Joint Chief of Staff.
The Dems who spoke to a mostly ignorant public knew full well that they were obfuscating in their presentation.

"The Dems who spoke to a mostly ignorant public knew full well that they were obfuscating in their presentation". Prove it.

You seem to be implying that Congress members telling people to obey/resist being pushed to violate the law is wrong because there are people who don't know the law. That's not how it works; it's the responsibility of the individual to know the law because ignorance thereof isn't a crime-with-no-consequences card. I mean... if one agrees to be bound by a set of rules, is it not on that person to be up to speed on said rules?

Let's approach this from a different angle: if I advise you to obey traffic laws but you go out and get a speeding ticket, am I at fault for advising you to obey traffic laws or are you at fault for not operating within the bounds of the privilege bestowed by your driver's license?

2d and crickets. Are we surprised? 🙄

Eh... 50/50... as of sometime yesterday, they're still trying on a different thread just up the way.

Just restating what's already common knowledge. Not "sedition" by any stretch of the imagination. Trump is just creating another "distraction".

This quasi-military political distraction was created by whom?

By Trump.

Trump was not in that Democrat quasi-military political distraction infomercial last I checked.
But maybe you missed his absence. No prob.

But Trump opened his fetid yap and made the unfounded "sedition" accusation. And he's using it as a distraction.