Right. Laws passed by the elected civilian government.
This is not some wild far right maga conspiracy theory to think that the military must be subservient to and separate from the government, just because the Americans elected a president we don't like.
You seem to think the US government is a single monolithic entity. It isn't. Laws are passed by Congress. The Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not create laws. The issue under discussion, which you apparently don't understand, is the obligations of members of the armed forces in the increasingly likely situation that the the Commander-in-Chief gives orders that contradict the law.
You seem to think the US government is a single monolithic entity.
Strawman. That is an invention entirely of your imagination. Nowhere did I claim or imply this.
orders that contradict the law.
They are to be subservient to civilian government at all times, yes. If the civilian government breaks down then obviously they are in a difficult position but usurping the laws or processes of the government is not their obligation.
I'm actually flabbergasted that the "enlightened minds" on here don't have the slightest clue why the military should be subservient to the democratically elected civilian government, apparently some don't even know what the term liberal democracy means, yet have no trouble pontificating like know it all techbros.
This is extremely complicated though, and generally misunderstood by internet experts. There might be some trivial situational examples where a soldier can plainly see an order would be a crime. Executing a prisoner for example.
Orders like that are not going to come from the top. Should the soldier who carried out the extrajudicial execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on President Obama's orders have refused? The action met all elements of civil criminal murder statutes and the Foreign murder of United States nationals statute. However at the time Presidential Immunity doctrine was widely accepted by mainstream legal and bipartisan political thinking, and outside fringe groups there were no serious calls to prosecute the president for this. The supreme court case that went on to confirm the immunity doctrine went exactly as everybody expected and confirmed this was the case.
A soldier pressing a button is not equipped to understand the issues let alone decide against his chain of command in a situation like this. He was told there is a terrorist to eliminate and that's what he does. The soldiers bombing Iran or invading Iraq or carrying out clandestine operations in Syria, they can't refuse those things.
The system is set up so situational crimes, crimes in the heat of battle or ones carried out by psychologically damaged men at low levels can be punished so the televisions and the politicians can tell people how moral and just and wonderful they are, while not really giving any room for a solder to be the hero who saves the world from fascism or whatever fantasy it is that the internet experts seem to think will happen.
Hmm according to this theory, the president can be an absolute dictator since according to your logic, oaths are not legally binding and by definition the president literally reports to no one.
If this is the thinking amongst MAGA then maybe that explains Trump's actions in the second term.
The legal system is one of the three branches of the government. The military voluntarily subordinates itself to civilian courts during peacetime outside of a constitutional crisis. A fact that becomes increasingly irrelevant with every new story like this one.
You and every politician in history on the losing side of a military coup can scream "that's illegal" till the cows come home, it won't change a thing.
The US still hasn't experienced a military coup in the 250 years of its existence. The form a military coup would take in this country would not be a coup against the elected executive branch, it would be a runaway executive branch itself. Which is an important distinction because the political echelon needs to maintain at least an appearance of democracy.
I'm aware it's unlikely. All social ruptures that have ever happened we're unlikely. Most people follow the rules most of the time.
This is a thread about unfolding defiance within the chain of command, in the context of the worst military defeat in US history. If you don't believe ruptures can ever happen you should probably just ignore this story and the increasing tempo of others like it.
Pardon, what? The US officially lost 58,220 military personnel in Vietnam prior to withdrawing from that conflict and losing every one of its objectives. We lost 2,402 people in Afghanistan which, notably, is once again under the control of the Taliban.
The US has lost 20 service members in the current war against Iran, and the war has not to this point ended in an American withdrawal or defeat.
To say this is the worst military defeat in US history would be factually ludicrous if it were said in good faith, but obviously it's not. It's not what the Stars and Stripes editors were saying. The only people peddling that line of BS are authoritarian dictatorships, including the one we're engaged in conflict with. Repeating it as if it were fact is either (a) incredibly misinformed or (b) wilfully spreading enemy propaganda. I'm going with (b). Including your wild assertion that the chain of command is unraveling, you must be either getting your news from the state television station of the Islamic Republic, or working for them.
People can just disagree with you, it's not always "bad faith". This is a commonly held opinion that's made it to the opinion sections of many mainstream outlets, sorry you don't like it.
The form a military coup would take in this country would not be a coup against the elected executive branch, it would be a runaway executive branch itself.
You don't understand the oath then.
---
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
---
One very important part of this oath that every officer and senior enlisted will point out, is that it covers the Constitution first, and lawful orders of the President second.
The oath that military officers and civil servants take does not mention the President at all:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Comments
An oath isn't a binding legal requirement. The military reports to the government.
The oath isn't legally binding, but the law is. Committing war crimes is illegal even if the civilian government orders it.
Right. Laws passed by the elected civilian government.
This is not some wild far right maga conspiracy theory to think that the military must be subservient to and separate from the government, just because the Americans elected a president we don't like.
You seem to think the US government is a single monolithic entity. It isn't. Laws are passed by Congress. The Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not create laws. The issue under discussion, which you apparently don't understand, is the obligations of members of the armed forces in the increasingly likely situation that the the Commander-in-Chief gives orders that contradict the law.
Strawman. That is an invention entirely of your imagination. Nowhere did I claim or imply this.
They are to be subservient to civilian government at all times, yes. If the civilian government breaks down then obviously they are in a difficult position but usurping the laws or processes of the government is not their obligation.
I'm actually flabbergasted that the "enlightened minds" on here don't have the slightest clue why the military should be subservient to the democratically elected civilian government, apparently some don't even know what the term liberal democracy means, yet have no trouble pontificating like know it all techbros.
Obeying the law is a legal requirement. Following illegal orders is not (usually) a defense.
This is extremely complicated though, and generally misunderstood by internet experts. There might be some trivial situational examples where a soldier can plainly see an order would be a crime. Executing a prisoner for example.
Orders like that are not going to come from the top. Should the soldier who carried out the extrajudicial execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on President Obama's orders have refused? The action met all elements of civil criminal murder statutes and the Foreign murder of United States nationals statute. However at the time Presidential Immunity doctrine was widely accepted by mainstream legal and bipartisan political thinking, and outside fringe groups there were no serious calls to prosecute the president for this. The supreme court case that went on to confirm the immunity doctrine went exactly as everybody expected and confirmed this was the case.
A soldier pressing a button is not equipped to understand the issues let alone decide against his chain of command in a situation like this. He was told there is a terrorist to eliminate and that's what he does. The soldiers bombing Iran or invading Iraq or carrying out clandestine operations in Syria, they can't refuse those things.
The system is set up so situational crimes, crimes in the heat of battle or ones carried out by psychologically damaged men at low levels can be punished so the televisions and the politicians can tell people how moral and just and wonderful they are, while not really giving any room for a solder to be the hero who saves the world from fascism or whatever fantasy it is that the internet experts seem to think will happen.
Hmm according to this theory, the president can be an absolute dictator since according to your logic, oaths are not legally binding and by definition the president literally reports to no one.
If this is the thinking amongst MAGA then maybe that explains Trump's actions in the second term.
The legal system is one of the three branches of the government. The military voluntarily subordinates itself to civilian courts during peacetime outside of a constitutional crisis. A fact that becomes increasingly irrelevant with every new story like this one.
You and every politician in history on the losing side of a military coup can scream "that's illegal" till the cows come home, it won't change a thing.
The US still hasn't experienced a military coup in the 250 years of its existence. The form a military coup would take in this country would not be a coup against the elected executive branch, it would be a runaway executive branch itself. Which is an important distinction because the political echelon needs to maintain at least an appearance of democracy.
I'm aware it's unlikely. All social ruptures that have ever happened we're unlikely. Most people follow the rules most of the time.
This is a thread about unfolding defiance within the chain of command, in the context of the worst military defeat in US history. If you don't believe ruptures can ever happen you should probably just ignore this story and the increasing tempo of others like it.
Pardon, what? The US officially lost 58,220 military personnel in Vietnam prior to withdrawing from that conflict and losing every one of its objectives. We lost 2,402 people in Afghanistan which, notably, is once again under the control of the Taliban.
The US has lost 20 service members in the current war against Iran, and the war has not to this point ended in an American withdrawal or defeat.
To say this is the worst military defeat in US history would be factually ludicrous if it were said in good faith, but obviously it's not. It's not what the Stars and Stripes editors were saying. The only people peddling that line of BS are authoritarian dictatorships, including the one we're engaged in conflict with. Repeating it as if it were fact is either (a) incredibly misinformed or (b) wilfully spreading enemy propaganda. I'm going with (b). Including your wild assertion that the chain of command is unraveling, you must be either getting your news from the state television station of the Islamic Republic, or working for them.
People can just disagree with you, it's not always "bad faith". This is a commonly held opinion that's made it to the opinion sections of many mainstream outlets, sorry you don't like it.
You don't understand the oath then.
---
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
---
One very important part of this oath that every officer and senior enlisted will point out, is that it covers the Constitution first, and lawful orders of the President second.
The oath that military officers and civil servants take does not mention the President at all:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Servic...