The family is out shopping and doing errands, so I have a moment.
The Mother Ship is upset because some Democrats have said that the military is not obligated to follow ILLEGAL orders. Apparently the Mother Ship sailors and captain believe soldiers, etc., SHOULD obey illegal orders.
In a post on his "Truth" Social, Trump suggested that the Democrats who said soldiers are not required to follow ILLEGAL orders should be tried as traitors and hanged.
Here is the law:
This Article is intended to explain unlawful orders in the Military.
A Servicemember can face adverse action for violating a lawful order; doing so is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, and sometimes Article 90 of the UCMJ and Article 91 of the UCMJ. Often, Servicemembers wonder what are lawful orders and what are unlawful orders. Article 92 provides the following guidance regarding unlawful orders:
"Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it."
Article 92 also references subparagraph 16.c of the UCMJ, which states the following:
"Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge. [NOTE, the lawfulness of an order can also be decided by a Commander at an Article 15, a General Officer during the GOMOR process, or by a Separation Board/Board of Inquiry]
Authority of issuing officer [or NCO] . The commissioned officer [or NCO] issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.
Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the Service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.
Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.
6 comments:
Here's an interesting comment from a sailor on the HMS Mothership...
"I’m someone who believes that we should support our government and the president when the government or the president is acting “in the right.” But it does become somewhat subjective, doesn’t it? The question is this: Is President Trump acting in our country’s best interests by sinking fast surface movers filled to the brim with illegal drugs intended for American children?"
There are no clear cut answers here. If a military officer believes he or she has been given an unlawful order, they can choose to not obey it. German military personnel after WWII tried the "I was carrying our orders" dodge to deflect from the clearly illegal orders they were following.
It did not work then, and it should not work now.
But who adjudicates these orders? That's the $64K question.
At the Military Law Task Force we learn - "but these are all actions that the Commander-In-Chief has discussed publicly as possibilities, which might involve the U.S. military, and that might lead to illegal orders. We don’t know if any of these things will happen, but you may want to think about what you would do if you were given orders to take part in any of these military actions or to take specific actions once deployed, since it may not be the deployment itself that’s illegal.
In the U.S.:
Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants. (Removals to countries where those removed are likely to be tortured could violate the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party.)
Use of military forces against civilian protesters. (The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions, primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”)
Outside the U.S.:
S. attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters.
S. attacks on surviving crew or passengers of vessels sunk at sea.
S. invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals.
I would not want to be in the position of having to decide to disobey an order. Except from tRUMP. You know he's lying about the legality of anything coming out of his mouth.
Where is the proof that any of the bombed boats ACTUALLY & WITHOUT A DOUBT were carrying drugs headed for the US? As far as I’ve been able to research, there hasn’t been any — just what the government has told the American people. And we are supposed to take the government’s assertion without proof? This government? Run by Trump, the known liar?
From NPR:
“The administration did not supply PolitiFact with evidence that the boats were carrying drugs. Drug experts told PolitiFact that Venezuela plays a minor role in trafficking drugs that reach the U.S. The legality of the strikes also is unclear. After the first attack, some legal experts told PolitiFact that the military action was illegal under maritime law or human rights conventions and the attack contradicted longstanding U.S. military practices.
Trump has used the figure repeatedly and also says he would consider similar strikes on land.“
Why would anyone believe a pathological liar?
“The six members of Congress whom Trump threatened are Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania; and Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.
The members who, unlike Trump, have served this country and risked their lives were not intimidated.
In a joint statement, they replied to Trump by saying:
We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation.
What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.”
Post a Comment