Illegal Orders

Here is a claim that federal officers carried out "illegal orders" in Portland:

https://news.yahoo.com/illegal-order-veterans-challenge-trumps-050046227.html

I think these two sentences are key:

• [He] walked up to the officers and asked whether they understood their oath to defend the constitution.
• "There was basically them walking out and assaulting a protester just to prove that they could."

I have a few issues with these claims and the entire series of events:

(1) Here is what the US Constitution actually says (i.e., support, not defend; many people get this wrong):

Article VI
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

(2) The "officers" in question may have been contractors who took no such oath.

(3) Without seeing their actual orders, it's difficult to say whether they were illegal and determine whether they were followed.

(4) And the phrase "just to prove that they could" is itself unprovable.

But that's just nitpicking. Here is my real objection:

Did any of these so-called veterans watch the "Collateral Murder" video? Did they object to THOSE clearly illegal orders? Did they object to any of the other myriad illegal orders which have been flying around for the past 19+ years under the guise of protecting homeland security? Did they object to the treatment received by Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange when those two heros pointed out the obvious crimes committed by the military and "our" government?

I sincerely doubt it.

I DO NOT condone the use of violence, either by the "protestors" or the federal agents. I DO approve of this constitutional right:

Amendment 1
... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But that's not what's happening, is it? The events in Seattle, Portland, and elsewhere can best be described this way:

insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

And the current insurrection is being aided and abetted by a corporate MSM in furtherance of "The Great Reset".

These so-called veterans should be asking this:

Do the people who attend the World Economic Forum support or defend the US Constitution? The only honest answer to that question is "absolutely not". They want to see it destroyed.