Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tgusa; kabar

As an officer, you swear an oath to the constitution, not the president. Now, the phrase “not in the best interest of the United States” is subject to a lot of interpretation, but if it really meant “unconstitutional”, then the JCS generals were spot-on.

If it meant “contrary to the generals’ wishes”, it was mutiny in the planning.


99 posted on 03/16/2009 6:31:40 AM PDT by MortMan (Power without responsibility-the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. - Rudyard Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: MortMan
As an officer, you swear an oath to the constitution, not the president. Now, the phrase “not in the best interest of the United States” is subject to a lot of interpretation, but if it really meant “unconstitutional”, then the JCS generals were spot-on.

Each individual must make that decision whether they are a general or not. The point is that we still have civilian control over the military. If the JCS had a formal agreement to make them the ones to decide whether to carry out the orders of the President or not, they are in violation of the Constitution. They could resign rather than carry out the order, but to actively disobey it and stop that order from being carried out is a far different matter.

101 posted on 03/16/2009 7:07:44 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson