- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,859
- Reaction score
- 30,124
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
There is nothing in either military or civil law that protects a soldier from punishment for disobeying a "Silly" order. I'm not an attorney but ...unlawful means exactly what it says: A violation of a law. (any Judge Advocates in the crowd?)
Yes it does.It's the very definition of illegal.
There is nothing in either military or civil law that protects a soldier from punishment for disobeying a "Silly" order. I'm not an attorney but ...unlawful means exactly what it says: A violation of a law. (any Judge Advocates in the crowd?)
Actually, there are some orders the President cannot directly issue to military personnel due to his lack of knowledge. I know that when Pres. Bush was aboard our ship, he was going to tour the Reactor spaces. Including the reactor control space. The personnel who directly operate the reactors were informed that, due to reactor safety regulations, the President could not touch the controls for the reactor, nor could he order the personnel to do anything with those controls without express permission from the officer in charge. The President does not have the knowledge of how our reactors operate and could cause a major problem.
We're talking about whether the President's orders would have to be followed if one didn't think they were legal.
2 Different issues.
1) Safety concerns for the President's life & others around him would in theory be enough to stop him from touching the controls the same way that safety concerns would stop him from traveling through certain parts of the world. That is not what is being argued. Those are common sense rules. The President (I hope) wouldn't 1) try to play around with the commands on a ship and 2) give orders that may endanger those around him without proper input from people around him.
We're talking about whether the President's orders would have to be followed if one didn't think they were legal. We're talking more in the sense of the President ordering the shelling a village somewhere in Somalia and a ship's seamen(not using the correct word, I know) refusing to do so for whatever reason.
Our Constitution confers civilian control over our military by making the President Commander In Chief. Do you think this is a good idea?
And, quite simply, the answer would be no. One would not be obligated to follow an unlawful order issued by the president.
I do realize this. And I don't agree with disobeying orders in general. Whether an order is unlawful or not is determined by the officers conducting the review of a servicemember's actions, not the servicemember. Unfortunately, this can cause a catch 22. People have been convicted of serious charges for obeying unlawful orders. Most of the time, orders that would seriously violate either the UCMJ or LOAC or some other rule of engagement are obviously unlawful, other times, there could be a question due to how information distribution works in the military.
However, I am arguing with those who believe a servicemember has to obey any order the President gives them directly, or more specifically, orders that aren't really lawful orders but also aren't dangerous orders. There are people arguing this point on this thread. I am saying they are wrong. Unlawful orders are not only those that, if followed, would cause serious physical harm or death or damage to military equipment. They do include orders that would violate certain standing orders in place or that would violate the UCMJ.
You may be arguing what you mentioned, others are not.
No it does not. He is the supreme authority period. Being in the military I figure you should know this. :roll:
The president can give any lawful order he wishes. No one is talking about ridicules fallacy situations with the president ordering people to jump in a fly helicopters without training or any such nonsense. That is what you are trying to make it about, and to be honest that argument is just blowing of smoke.
Read this quote :
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...l-say-military-matters-17.html#post1058293248
We're arguing what the president can lawfully do. Can he order line units? Yes. Can he order individual troops to move in X directions? Yes. Can he give unlawful orders? No. But there is no doubt that within the lawful orders that he gives he is the supreme commander of all the branches.
Read this quote :
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...l-say-military-matters-17.html#post1058293248
We're arguing what the president can lawfully do. Can he order line units? Yes. Can he order individual troops to move in X directions? Yes. Can he give unlawful orders? No. But there is no doubt that within the lawful orders that he gives he is the supreme commander of all the branches.
The theater commander should have the president's full support when making decisions about tactics and strategy. IOW, if the theater commander says he needs it, the president let's him have it.
You still don't get it, do you? The president is bound by the chain of command just like everyone else. An order that doesn't go through proper channels could be considered unlawful and therefore no obligation exists to obey it. The president doesn't get to circumvent the system, just because he's the president. Sorry!
Running from the president to the secretary of defense to the commander of the combatant command, the chain of command for the United States military is spelled out by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. The secretaries of the military departments assign all forces under their jurisdiction to the unified and specific combatant commands to perform missions assigned by those commands.
Under the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1958, the Departments of Army, Navy and Air Force were eliminated from the chain of "operational" command. Commanders of unified and specified commands now respond to the president and the secretary of defense through the joint chief of staff. The act redefined the functions of the military departments to those of essentially organizing, training, equipping and supporting combat forces for the unified and specified commands.
President of the United States
• Commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces.
Secretary of Defense
• Principal defense policy adviser to the president
• Appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate
• Military action taken by the president is passed through the secretary of defense
National Security Council
• Consists of the president, vice-president, secretary of state and secretary of defense
• Serves as the principal forum for considering national security issues requiring presidential decisions
• The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff serves as military adviser to the Council; the CIA is the intelligence adviser
• The secretary of the treasury, the U.S. representative to the United Nations, the assistant to the president for national security affairs, the assistant to the president for economic policy and the president's chief of staff are invited to all meetings.
• The attorney general and the director of the office of national drug control policy attend meetings pertaining to their jurisdiction. If appropriate, other officials are invited.
In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Act mandated that operational control of the services follows a chain of command from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the Unified Combatant Commanders, who have control of all armed forces units in their geographic or function area of responsibility. Thus, the Chief of Staff of each service only has the responsibility to organize, train and equip his own service component. The services provide trained forces to the Combatant Commanders for use as they see fit.
That really worked out for Westmoreland, huh?
That really worked out for Westmoreland, huh?
What part of Commander in Chiefof the Army, Navy, Airforce, National Guard & Militia do you not understand?
FOXNews.com - U.S. Military Chain of Command - U.S. & World
United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?