Replies

I disagree. At that level, one's resignation must be approved or disapproved by the very person who is being disobeyed.

That kind of tautology is nonsense. You publicly announce your resignation and the reasons why, period. It has been done before, including under Nixon. Remember the resignations of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus. Richardson resigned when Mr. Nixon instructed him to fire Cox and Richardson refused. When the President then asked Ruckelshaus to dismiss Cox, he refused, White House spokesman Ronald L. Ziegler said, and he was fired. Ruckelshaus said he resigned.

Finally, the President turned to Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, who by law becomes acting Attorney General when the Attorney General and deputy attorney general are absent, and he carried out the President's order to fire Cox. The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned.

This is the principled way to handle an order you cannot carry out.

Further, if a commander judges an order to be illegal or immoral, it is that commander's responsibility to ensure that soldiers in their command do not follow the illegal/immoral order. At the JCS level, that means countermanding the order for the entire services.

Wrong. Countermanding the order is far different than refusing to carry it out. And the principled thing to do is for that commanding officer to submit his resignation, not countermand the order. The President was elected by the people. The military commander was not. If that commander will not carry out the order than someone further down the chain of command will. We cannot have every commander making the determination of whether an order is "immoral" or not before carrying it out. If it is a matter of personal conscience, than resign and let the public decide.

Under extraordinary circumstances, where the civilian leadership has breached the constitution and its subservient laws, it means NOT obeying the President. If the generals had sworn fealty to the President, or even to the office of the President, then their duty under the oath would be obedience to the order. If they swore loyalty to the President, they would in effect be a private army at the disposal of a politician, rather than an arm of United States policy under the direction of the duly elected leader of the country.

The point is that this can't be a group decision, but a personal one. What you are describing is the justification used by generals in Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, etc. to take over the democratically elected government because they knew what was best for the country. We don't need a military junta to ensure that the Constitution is upheld. There is a reason that the President was made CIC of the military.

Just my opinion, of course. And may God grant that we (as a country) never have to see such extraordinary circumstances as would cause the military to forswear the orders of a duly elected President.

God help us that there are not many citizens like you who would accept such a circumstance. I say that advisedly having served as a naval officer for 8 years and a Foreign Service Officer for 28 years. I have no problem with people refusing to carry out orders as a matter of individual conscience and principle and accepting the consequences of those decisions by resigning or being punished. However, for these dissenters to remain in power countermanding the orders of a duly elected President goes far beyond just principled dissent. It is a revolution and the people don't have a say.