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.
Comments
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.