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.
25 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.”
Simply ignore the ignorance of tRump and the Mothership delusionists and Fight Like Hell For Truth and the Right (ethical policies and behavoirs).
Let the BS go for exactly what it is, BS.
Well Shaw... you've asked the salient question regarding proof and guilt.
I was talking to a friend earlier this week about this kind of stuff. She explained it like this... Our ideals about guilt, innocence, trials, due process and more, are for US citizens... ONLY.
Not for the rest of the world. WE are the ones who get to enjoy those liberties. What we do to others is basically tough s#^t. We're America.
When I said America does not act like that, she scoffed saying they do it to us!
But here's a better question for folks...
The Trump Administration had in their custody two of the accused drug terrorists who they failed to kill in a recent bombing. Somehow those two survived and we fished them out of the ocean and had them on a US Navy ship.
Since the Trump Admin had ID'ed them as terrorists, you'd expect us to jail them and bring them to trial, because, as the Admin said, they were guilty. But we sent them home!!!
Why did the Trump Admin release guilty terrorists to attack us again?
Tell us Skud, -FJ, Joe C et al... why would the US do that?
Dave, "Why did the Trump Admin release guilty terrorists to attack us again?"
My best response is to ask trump because I or you have no clue.
It is OK to assassinate a terrorist, it is OK to assassinate a general, it is OK to burn buildings but it is not OK to use US troops to protect American citizens, why is that?
Trump lies about most things but so did biden so why is trump the bad guy because he lies. It wold be nice to have a president who didn't lie but that seems to be the norm.
Before you excoriate me for saying biden lied look it up. Just a week in the biden lie agenda (https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/politics/fact-check-biden-pennsylvania-campaign-swing). Problem is biden lied so much he forgot what was fact and what was fiction. As the NYT said "It’s not that he’s lying, you see. Biden merely adorns reality. "The ex-president got away with a torrent of lies,” wrote a CNN senior reporter.
Skud... you never dissappoint. In a post about the lawlessness of some presidential orders and whether military personnel should have to follow all orders, or only legal orders, you bring up President Biden.
I went back and reviewed every comment here and nowhere is there any mention of Biden. How is he germane to this post?
So... as for his lying, or not, I'll address that later in a special post dedicated to you.
Now to your response to the actual point of the post...
In response to my question as to whether it was right to release those terrorists, your non answer is noted. Really, you tell us to ask "trump"?
Think about it.
President Trump and his administration SAY they have enough evidence to show all the people they are killing in the Gulf are guilty of terrorism against the US.
So taking them at their word, my question still stands. What's your opinion? It seems as if you want to avoid taking a stand.
But that's one issue. You also stated "It is OK to assassinate a terrorist" or even a general.
No it is not. The US changed our policy regarding this in the 70's after the Nixon Admin. So it's illegal, in my opinion, when presidents claim the authority to do so. And that's true whether the president was/is Obama, Bush, Trump or anyone else.
Also... our military personnel are not obligated to follow illegal orders to kill, or attack anyone, ever. And if you are in doubt, just read the UCMJ.
Oye vey!
We must find ways to shield ole tRump cause he's Making America "great" Again. Right skud?
Biden and his administration are not controlling a damn thing. They've been out of office 10 months and the country is going to hell an a hurry. So keep finding ways to excuse the filth that is tRump and keep deflecting with your distractions to President Biden, an honorable man with human flaws. The biggest difference between tRump anf President Biden? tRump has no honor or integrity, and he's managed to infect society with his narcissistic cancer and hate.
Biden lives rent-free in Skud's head.
"But, what about BIDEN!" is his go-to response to everything.
His obsession is hilarious, but totally useless in rational discourse.
"...it is not OK to use US troops to protect American citizens, why is that?"
Because individual states and cities in those states have their own law enforcement to protect their citizens. America does NOT by law send in US Troops to states to protect Americans, the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. The National guard is used under specific circumstances, but presidents do not send US troops into states except under extreme circumstances, by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows the use of troops to suppress insurrections or enforce federal law (See the Civil Rights era).
The only insurrection I'm aware of was on January 6, 2021, when Trump's MAGA thugs attacked the US Capitol to stop the certification of the electoral vote so that Trump could overturn the free and fair election, and illegally install himself, the loser, as POTUS. But Trump was POTUS then and did not call out the national guard nor US troops to protect American citizens from his armed insurrectionist thugs. The American citizens that were being attacked and beaten were the US Capitol police. Trump didn't think enough of those LEOs to protect them.
PS. We know it is difficult for you to criticize Trump without throwing shade on Biden. Biden was not perfect. He is a decent but flawed human being. Trump is just flawed, desperately flawed. There is no decency in him.
We witness that truth every day.
Should skud be banished to the Mother Ship? der GrupeThink Tank.
Dave, Don't tell Ms Shaw that the swell guy made an error in approving the assassination of osama. He was not tried in a court of law but he was sentenced to death by a sitting president and his SS.
I brought up biden because you seem to believe only republican politicians lie when biden seldom told the truth on anything.
I will admit I have mixed feelings on the NG used to protect citizens because I no longer live in Chicago so I do not feel threatened by Chicago's incompetent mayor but have sympathy for those who cannot live their lives in peace. 375 people have been killed so far this year and in your opinion that is acceptable.
BB, Surprised it is you who wants to banish me for not agreeing with the you and people on this blog. I didn't see you as someone who are part of the if you don't agree with me you are banished crowd. I am not a trump fan but think he was the better of the two miserable choices we had. Now because we have a difference of opinion I should be banished. This comes from someone who spends time on the mothership, you, about someone who doesn't spend any, me.
Not a chance BB... antagonists are welcome. But they can't just be anarchists. They should intelligently contribute to the conversation. Bring a strong opinion, but back it up. Don't just say stuff.
No way we want an echo chamber here or the other side of the mirror from Der Mothership.
Naw BB-Idaho, don't want to reduce the opportunity to observe conservative ignorance and delusions. Having traveled that destructive path for longer than I care to acknowledge I like the constant reminders of the old dead me as it keeps me firmly on my present path. Far superior to the ignorance and delusions of conservatism and its accompanying isms.
I can’t speak for BB, but I understood his comment to be a joke, not serious at all.
Fear not, Skud.
Nobody is banishing you to the where you agree with every MAGA viewpoint.
I'm looking forward to being voluntarily banished to my music room with a single malt this evening.
Slà inte mhath!
A joke and an insult to the Mothership, who has banned more folks than any other I know of. Back on the "only following orders", it is of interest to review the case of Lt. Calley and the My Lai massacre.
Skud does share a lot of opinions with Trump. So what if he has cancer?
Trump suggested people shouldn’t feel sorry for Biden over his cancer diagnosis:
“Biden was always a stupid guy. A mean SOB.. Not working out too well for him right now. So, when you start feeling sorry for him, remember he’s a bad guy”.
Keep up your hate, there, Skud. You're telling us what kind of person you truly are.
Dave... I went with mezcal.
Sadly BB, because that little "incident" might make people sad or ashamed to be Americans, it can no longer be taught in many school districts in the good ole US of A. You can bet he same will happen with Abu Ghraib and Jan 6 soon enough.
All the news that's fit to print comes to mind. Along with home on the range, where "never is heard a discouraging word".
Skud... it's getting tiresome responding to you. It really seems as if you're a BOT, unable to process logic, an idiot, or just plain belligerent. Can you point to anywhere where I've ever said or written Biden, the Dems or any other politician does not lie or that only Republicans lie?
I'll save you the trouble. The answer is no. Why... because I know better. So why do YOU persist in lying about me. I've asked this numerous times, always without an apology or answer.
You tell us why Skud. Why are you unable to process truth that challenges your preconceived ideas? And why do you persist in lying about me specifically?
Post a Comment