Replies

It is not required that a precedent be in place in order to bring a suit and cause a decision to be made.

I agree. That's actually not what I'm saying.

What I'm looking at is officers following legal orders versus illegal orders. I'm looking specifically at situations where the issue isn't clear (regardless of whether we, as political agitators see the issue with 'clarity' or not). I'm asking at what point is an officer expected to question the legality of an order or the authority issuing the order?

I think if the situation is not clear to the officer, then he should look to any legal precedent that is available for this clarity. In this case, I don't believe there is a clear precedent to rely upon. It's like they say- 'you can disobey, but you had better be right'.

What is being questioned here is the legitimacy. As I said, the military has ceremonies for these things that we recognise as custom. They are ceremony but they are functional ceremonies. A change of command ceremony physically demonstrates something relevent to the troops. It demonstrates the legitimacy of the commander. Obviously, it doesn't guarantee to the men that the commander has not forged some pertinent document somewhere along the way that would invalidate him as commander if the issue ever came to a legal tribunal.

But we have to deal with practicalities as well. We are in an actual shooting war. The war was going on before Obama ever showed up. Lives are on the line. We can't just stop the war every time someone has a question about the incoming president. As per constutional requirement and per military custom, Obama has been sworn in as CinC.

Because of this I think any officer questioning the legality of an order from the CinC needs to be able to clearly demonstrate the illegitimacy of that order and I just don't think this is the case- going by the military's own customs.

I think an officer when weighing this must also take responsibility for his actions. He must look at and consider: A) what harm comes from following the order if it turns out it was issued by an a non-legitimate authority and B) what harm comes from not following the order.

I have my opinion here. Others will have theirs.

What is being questioned here is the legitimacy. As I said, the military has ceremonies for these things that we recognise as custom. They are ceremony but they are functional ceremonies. A change of command ceremony physically demonstrates something relevent to the troops. It demonstrates the legitimacy of the commander. Obviously, it doesn't guarantee to the men that the commander has not forged some pertinent document somewhere along the way that would invalidate him as commander if the issue ever came to a legal tribunal.

The thing with the change of command situation you highlighted is that the troops know that the military has seen their commander's birth certificate and other qualifications. They have no reason to question his authority. In this situation, there is good reason to raise a question.

I understand that point and agree with it. There is certainly the potential to undermine specific aspects of the command structure of the military with this path. But it is precisely for that reason that the government may have no choice but to decide this matter and to do it quickly.

There are only two possibilities. Obama is legitimate, or he is not. If he is not, then all orders and legislation issued under his authority are invalid. I would think that the more time that goes by, the more devastating it will be if he is removed. Can you think of any other path that would cause this to be decided as quickly? I can't.

All of the other lawsuits will be stone walled and delayed until they are irrelevant. But if sufficient numbers sign on to this suit they will have no choice. I have confidence in the military to deal effectively with any disruption this my cause while it is being settled.

I also think there are sufficient differences between this case and typical orders issued through the command structure that there will be no disruption to it. 1) Most all members of the military are smart enough to know the difference, and 2) the military will not allow it; NJP will be administered swiftly to anyone who attempts to use this as a means to disobey a normal order.