And more importantly, if a member of the military follows an unlawful order they can be put to prison because of it. The defense of "I was just following orders" is literally invalid when it comes to unlawful orders, not following unlawful orders in a western military isn't just a privilage it's a duty.
I dunno how it exactly works in US military, but in the Finnish Defense Force it was like this. if you suspect you were given an unlawful order then
Inform the officer that issued that order and ask for the order in writing(this is important)
If pressed you could refuse but you'd be taken into disiplinary hearing because of it (that's why important that you have order in writing so you have evidence other then your word).
If the hearing (held obviously by an officer other then one who issued the order) finds the order to be unlawful you will not suffer any penalties for it (though obviously if the order was lawful then you will face punishment for disobeying a direct order).
This was drilled to us from the start of basic training until the end of my service, there was even this one commander who outright aplogized to me when I informed that technically he couldn't order me to carry the crate of pistols I had just carried since I was in unarmed service (nothing came of it since neither of us pressed the issue).
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
Broomstick wrote:It's not about keeping electoral promises, it's about the limits of power and the law. The PotUS is not above the law, and the military has sworn NOT to obey unlawful orders.
Yes, and the president can change the law, or influence it's changing. Yeah, he'll need the help of congress but so do a lot of the other proposals by other candidates. The president is in a position to influence congress. He's not going to just ask people to do things without passing a law for it, nothing will happen and he'll just look like an idiot.
biostem wrote:Wait, was the person in Yemen a US citizen? If so, were they intentionally targeted as part of that drone strike, or were they an unintended casualty? Was the person in a contested or warzone, and were they part of a military strike? It sounds like you may be conflating the president calling in a "hit" versus someone killed as part of a military action.
No. No conflation. Two US citizens, father and son. One was arguably a legit target, the 16 year old boy was not. Both were on a US government kill list. The kid if I remember correctly was murdered in a drone strike in a civilian area. Killing him justified collateral damage apparently.
Yup. I wouldn't give a shit if he'd been killed carrying an AK-47 in Tora Bora or something, but near as I can tell he was mostly making videos about how God hates America and wants dead Americans and posting him on the internet. Fred Phelps did that every damned day of his life.
Maybe that and whatever else he was doing was illegal, but if Obama can have an US citizen literally assassinated and admit it on the national news there's no reason Trump wouldn't be able to do the same and more.
(though obviously if the order was lawful then you will face punishment for disobeying a direct order)
How would it be handled if the solder refusing the order legitimately thought the order was illegal and was simply mistaken? Would he still be punished or simply retrained?
(though obviously if the order was lawful then you will face punishment for disobeying a direct order)
How would it be handled if the solder refusing the order legitimately thought the order was illegal and was simply mistaken? Would he still be punished or simply retrained?
what would happen in that case would depend on the nature of the order and rank and position of the order. Though bare in mind that there's no univeral punishment for "disobeying orders" so you could still get punished but the punishment would be less severe (like loosing rights to vactions of x number of days).
bare in mind that Finland uses compulsory service that at time I was serving ranged from 6 to 12 months (personally I served for 11 months) so certain things would work differently in the US.
That said those in career military are expected to know when an order is legal or not (it's their job after all) so they would be dealt more harshly.
Also the nature of the order would determine the responce, if it was truly a case where the order could mistaken for an illegal one (maybe due to bad wording or something like that) then I suppose the punishment would be rather minor (basically a slap in the wirsts for recruits). However if the order was clearly valid then it's the job of the soldier being disiplined to prove how he/she could be mistaken about the validity of the order (so that this cannot be used by soldiers to skip on duties).
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
Ralin wrote:Yup. I wouldn't give a shit if he'd been killed carrying an AK-47 in Tora Bora or something, but near as I can tell he was mostly making videos about how God hates America and wants dead Americans and posting him on the internet. Fred Phelps did that every damned day of his life.
Maybe that and whatever else he was doing was illegal, but if Obama can have an US citizen literally assassinated and admit it on the national news there's no reason Trump wouldn't be able to do the same and more.
I think an additional factor with al-Awlaki is that he was a convicted criminal in Yemen as well as being a thorn in the side of the US. That still may not be justification enough, but he wasn't just some random guy, and even if he hadn't been tried in the US he had been tried and convicted in Yemen. Your average ranter on YouTube isn't like that.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote:
I think an additional factor with al-Awlaki is that he was a convicted criminal in Yemen as well as being a thorn in the side of the US. That still may not be justification enough, but he wasn't just some random guy, and even if he hadn't been tried in the US he had been tried and convicted in Yemen. Your average ranter on YouTube isn't like that.
Well hell, I never thought Bush and Obama were literally tossing darts at a wall to pick who goes on the kill list. I'm sure Obama has some sort of criteria in place to decide these things, even if it is a secret and crappy one. That doesn't help much. "The president can order you killed or imprisoned without trial if he's pretty sure you're guilty and dangerous" is plenty scary all by itself.
I don't find the fact that some other country convicted him (in absentia) particularly important either given that we're talking about the American military being ordered to kill him.
It's important because it could be used to justify the US sending a drone after him, not because I think convictions in absentia are a wonderful thing (coming from a culture where they don't exist, no, I don't think they're wonderful).
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Zaune wrote:So... Just how good is the US military chain of command at actually dealing with unlawful orders and the issuing thereof?
HAH HAHAHAAH HAHAHA breath HAHAHAHA HAHAHA! sorry... whew... I needed that. I'm not laughing at you BTW, it's just that most officers I know are TERRIFIED and shocked when I tell them that their FIRST duty is to stand up for those under them and that they MUST put them before their careers (and yes, even lives) to be good officers. That incidentally, includes not following illegal orders.
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
No. No conflation. Two US citizens, father and son. One was arguably a legit target, the 16 year old boy was not. Both were on a US government kill list. The kid if I remember correctly was murdered in a drone strike in a civilian area. Killing him justified collateral damage apparently.
Yup. I wouldn't give a shit if he'd been killed carrying an AK-47 in Tora Bora or something, but near as I can tell he was mostly making videos about how God hates America and wants dead Americans and posting him on the internet. Fred Phelps did that every damned day of his life.
Maybe that and whatever else he was doing was illegal, but if Obama can have an US citizen literally assassinated and admit it on the national news there's no reason Trump wouldn't be able to do the same and more.
This is why I refused to vote for mitt romney. Obamabots who love everything he does don't seem to think about the long term implications of giving that power to an executive... duh...
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
Broomstick wrote:Well, they call the current French government "the Fifth Republic". There's probably a reason for that...
again, as I said, "nation trumps state"
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
Er.... why the fuck are you going on about? France has never been a Federation or Federalistic as the US has been.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Jonesy is on one of his drive-by trollings today. Just ignore the stain.
Anyway, re OP, it's important to note that the military service members posting in support of the Muslims aren't breaking any rules... by a fairly narrow definition. Conversely, soldiers *have* gotten in trouble before for speaking in a political manner-- IIRC during the last Presidential election some media types caught a soldier at a Romney rally and he made some comments that got him in trouble. It's all about how you couch it, I suppose, but for the most part, they're not supposed to have an opinion as far as it goes. That's not their job.
Zaune wrote:So... Just how good is the US military chain of command at actually dealing with unlawful orders and the issuing thereof?
HAH HAHAHAAH HAHAHA breath HAHAHAHA HAHAHA! sorry... whew... I needed that. I'm not laughing at you BTW, it's just that most officers I know are TERRIFIED and shocked when I tell them that their FIRST duty is to stand up for those under them and that they MUST put them before their careers (and yes, even lives) to be good officers. That incidentally, includes not following illegal orders.
This is an unfortunate side-effect of drawing officers from basically the same pool of citizens we draw the rest of the college-educated middle class from (biased slightly downards in terms of income).
I imagine you get a lot of people who just plain didn't hear the word "honor" in the context of "yes, this means something you personally have to worry about" until they set foot inside a military academy after graduating from high school.
It is also why I've found it occasionally amusing when someone argues that the precise wording of oaths is relevant to the modern US military. The last generation of officers who would, as a whole, in a collective body, be prepared to take major risks to life and career over the details of an oath have been dead and buried for a long time.
That's not to say they don't understand why they're fighting or want to do the right thing and/or do it bravely or correctly. But they're not the sort of people who have had it beaten into them from infancy that their duty and responsibility are more important than their career or their life.
Zaune wrote:So... Just how good is the US military chain of command at actually dealing with unlawful orders and the issuing thereof?
HAH HAHAHAAH HAHAHA breath HAHAHAHA HAHAHA! sorry... whew... I needed that. I'm not laughing at you BTW, it's just that most officers I know are TERRIFIED and shocked when I tell them that their FIRST duty is to stand up for those under them and that they MUST put them before their careers (and yes, even lives) to be good officers. That incidentally, includes not following illegal orders.
This is an unfortunate side-effect of drawing officers from basically the same pool of citizens we draw the rest of the college-educated middle class from (biased slightly downards in terms of income).
I imagine you get a lot of people who just plain didn't hear the word "honor" in the context of "yes, this means something you personally have to worry about" until they set foot inside a military academy after graduating from high school.
It is also why I've found it occasionally amusing when someone argues that the precise wording of oaths is relevant to the modern US military. The last generation of officers who would, as a whole, in a collective body, be prepared to take major risks to life and career over the details of an oath have been dead and buried for a long time.
That's not to say they don't understand why they're fighting or want to do the right thing and/or do it bravely or correctly. But they're not the sort of people who have had it beaten into them from infancy that their duty and responsibility are more important than their career or their life.
All true, and also why they will fail miserably
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
Basically, our upper class forgot about honor when it turned out that playing the stock market for hectomegabucks was more fun. Our middle class forgot about honor for a variety of reasons. Our lower class never had honor as such but did used to have "respectability," that which distinguished them from the criminal underclass... and somehow we've managed to drop that too.
There were a lot of drawbacks to traditional American culture of the early 20th century, but at least it wasn't so damn hard to find people willing to take risks for the sake of their responsibilities, as opposed to taking them for their personal moral values (which is still pretty doable).
'Honor' and 'respectability' can be seen as a form of social responsibility, but somewhere in the mid-late 20th century people turned it into a matter of personal, individual responsibility rather than a responsibility to society. Mind you, there was always that personal responsibility, but somewhere along the way it became divorced from the social component, which then withered away.
Officers are politicians, enough go the officer route so that they can actually hold an office that it severely impacts training. After all, they take a fresh face out of school butterbar and put him in charge of a bunch of professionals and actually think he can lead?
I am very biased against officers btw, having had one lead us into a mine field on his own compulsion, and that was just one way he unthinkingly tried to get us killed. So take my opinion on them for what its worth.
Elheru Aran wrote:Jonesy is on one of his drive-by trollings today. Just ignore the stain.
Anyway, re OP, it's important to note that the military service members posting in support of the Muslims aren't breaking any rules... by a fairly narrow definition. Conversely, soldiers *have* gotten in trouble before for speaking in a political manner-- IIRC during the last Presidential election some media types caught a soldier at a Romney rally and he made some comments that got him in trouble. It's all about how you couch it, I suppose, but for the most part, they're not supposed to have an opinion as far as it goes. That's not their job.
Keep on believing it, and it'll all be fine.... Incidentally, if a German member of the whermacht had made a similar social media post in uniform LAST year, do you think je would be more or less well regarded by his fellows and society THIS year?
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
Broomstick wrote:Er.... why the fuck are you going on about? France has never been a Federation or Federalistic as the US has been.
Hence why in FRANCE, the word FRENCH has a much more specific meaning than the same construction does in america, non? Ergo, especially in FRANCE, the nation trumps the state... 5 times and counting, at least for republics anyway
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
I still don't know what you're blathering about. How about you just state it plainly rather than attempting innuendo?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote:I still don't know what you're blathering about. How about you just state it plainly rather than attempting innuendo?
Sigh.... As we have seen in France, european nations are NOT propositional nations as the USA is supposed to be, thus those nations are far less likely to have a phenomenon LIKE this one take place... The US could also see a violent disagreement amongst the ranks of the armed forces over issues such as this... And the likelihood of such a terrible eventuality is raised by several factors. Including, but not limited to, certain executive powers that the president was never meant to have, the importation of populations hostile to Western civilization itself, and the over politicization of these kinds of issues and the clamping down of those who disagree with the Sjw agenda. For example, people on this board claiming I am in favor of violence when I specifically and clearly warn against policies that are,virtually GUARANTEED to increase it
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
Broomstick wrote:I still don't know what you're blathering about. How about you just state it plainly rather than attempting innuendo?
Sigh.... As we have seen in France, european nations are NOT propositional nations as the USA is supposed to be, thus those nations are far less likely to have a phenomenon LIKE this one take place...
Since I can't be arsed to re-read all of your drivel please be more specific about "a phenomenon LIKE this one take place" - what the hell are you talking about? Service members speaking up in defense of Muslim citizens? Civil war? Fighting ISIS? What the FUCK are you talking about?
The US could also see a violent disagreement amongst the ranks of the armed forces over issues such as this...
Yeah, we could but most likely we won't. The last time Americans shot at each other in earnest was 150 years ago. As divided as we are now, we are not nearly THAT divided over anything.
Including, but not limited to, certain executive powers that the president was never meant to have, the importation of populations hostile to Western civilization itself, and the over politicization of these kinds of issues and the clamping down of those who disagree with the Sjw agenda.
The constitution was never intended to be writ in stone. What worked for a agricultural-based nation on the sliver of land east of the Appalachians in the the 1800's isn't going to work for a continent-spanning industrial and tech-based nation in the 2000's. Apparently, this chaps a lot of asses but too bad. If Congress won't act the President has to. Maybe if Congress did act the President wouldn't feel compelled to "take over".
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote:I still don't know what you're blathering about. How about you just state it plainly rather than attempting innuendo?
Sigh.... As we have seen in France, european nations are NOT propositional nations as the USA is supposed to be, thus those nations are far less likely to have a phenomenon LIKE this one take place...
Since I can't be arsed to re-read all of your drivel please be more specific about "a phenomenon LIKE this one take place" - what the hell are you talking about? Service members speaking up in defense of Muslim citizens? Civil war? Fighting ISIS? What the FUCK are you talking about?
The US could also see a violent disagreement amongst the ranks of the armed forces over issues such as this...
Yeah, we could but most likely we won't. The last time Americans shot at each other in earnest was 150 years ago. As divided as we are now, we are not nearly THAT divided over anything.
Including, but not limited to, certain executive powers that the president was never meant to have, the importation of populations hostile to Western civilization itself, and the over politicization of these kinds of issues and the clamping down of those who disagree with the Sjw agenda.
The constitution was never intended to be writ in stone. What worked for a agricultural-based nation on the sliver of land east of the Appalachians in the the 1800's isn't going to work for a continent-spanning industrial and tech-based nation in the 2000's. Apparently, this chaps a lot of asses but too bad. If Congress won't act the President has to. Maybe if Congress did act the President wouldn't feel compelled to "take over".
I was talking about the subject of the thread. As for your second statement... Well, lets hope so. And your third statement directly contradicts your second
Terralthra wrote:It's similar to the Arabic word for "one who sows discord" or "one who crushes underfoot". It'd be like if the acronym for the some Tea Party thing was "DKBAG" or something. In one sense, it's just the acronym for ISIL/ISIS in Arabic: Dawlat (al-) Islāmiyya ‘Irāq Shām, but it's also an insult.
"Democratic Korps (of those who are) Beneficently Anti-Government"
