politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I would be more comfortable if the US actually had law that said US military officers weren't obligated to follow orders they know to be illegal. Germany has that post WW2, but technically in the US you can be punished, maybe even imprisoned, for not following a dictator's orders.
That's not true at all. Following an unlawful order is illegal and not a valid excuse.
The officer oath is to support the and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (aka disobeying a direct order) spells out that it only applies to lawful orders.
Anything illegal is non binding, and stating you're following an order is not an excuse. That's literally one of the rules of the Geneva convention.
All that to say, not at all true. What I really would expect if Trump tried pulling this off with the military is a huge amount of resistance and pushback and no one in command really following the illegal orders.
There might be some schism group of crazies who try and jump the chain of command because they're MAGA crazies in the military, but it's definitely a small minority.
The US Military is a volunteer force, the officer corps has been taught and studied the history of these type of bad orders and crazy situations extensively. The NCO corps and rest of the enlisted are not ignorant bumpkins who are ignorant of their jobs and their duty to the constitution.
I don't think it really "isn't true at all". While I agree with you, by and large the US military are very competent and truly patriotic, you yourself mention a "schism group of crazies" who would circumvent things. I don't think it's likely they would take over comprehensively, but I worry that the possibility of some critical mass succeeding is there.
I think the US is far more likely to wrangle around what a "lawful order" is than many other countries.
My experience is only anecdotal, but while I served in the USAF, I saw and expected officers and enlisted personnel to uphold integrity first and excellence in all we do. I did not meet anyone who didn't take their oath seriously or those who would put politics before country. Also the political spectrum I met while enlisted was very broad and I personally doubt the caliber of men and women truly needed to overthrow the government would be on board with the plan due to how seriously we take our oath.
Their oath is to Commander-in-Chief. What are they going to do with placed Pentagon lawyers declaring lawful orders like Gitmo torture.
Pretty sure the Manual for Courts-Martial specifically says only lawful orders need to be followed
That's cool, and yeah I would expect the military court to take those things into consideration. However, Trump has already shown a propensity to stacking courts, so that's not necessarily something I would cling my hopes to.