Posted on 11/18/2017 9:53:05 AM PST by ex91B10
The top U.S. nuclear commander said Saturday he would push back against President Trump if he ordered a nuclear launch the general believed to be "illegal," saying he would hope to find another solution.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I did look it up, and the UCMJ refers to the military:
(5) “Superior commissioned officer” means a commissioned officer superior in rank of command.
get it? “a commissioned officer”
The military is under authority of the president. What if a general, on his own, who wants to overrule the president is a traitor?
What if he is mentally unqualified to overrule the president?
What if he is just plain stupid, like this one?
That’s what I thought too. Isn’t it a responsibility of ALL military, at any rank, to not carry out an illegal order? Somebody help me out.
Well, he did take that post in the Obama era. but he has been in the AF his whole life. The answer is correct about disobeying an illegal order, but the article is framing the whole thing in a dishonest way.
Thank you! Totally different, makes sense!
Our enemies thank you for making that public, you dumb shite.
You do not say, "That's illegal." Not when talking to your superior. You say, "That is unlawful."
Maybe a little thing but it says so much.
As of now he should be removed, immediately.
Given the current world climate...ain’t no room for insubordination at the top of the ladder.
Yes - that is exactly the risk an officer faces - courts martial for failing to follow order vs courts martial for following an illegal order. RHIP/RHIR - Rank has it’s privileges/Rank has it’s responsibilities.
It’s true the the Defense department adopted the Nuremberg principals in 1953 as official policy. However, it goes way before the Geneva Convention even before the original US oaths were enacted.
Predecessors include the 1896 Hague Convention, 1861 Lieber Code, etc.
When Officers were first expected to discern what is legal/illegal isn’t well established. However, lower ranking officers since antiquity have long been expected to uphold their allegiance to their sovereign and refuse to comply, report, or otherwise resist senior officers that were disobeying, plotting treason, or otherwise resisting the sovereign.
Post WWII/Korea things have gotten more muddled as the expectation now, despite the oath, is that enlisted (especially NCOs) should push back as well when it is clearly onerous.
The examples of note here are the prosecutions after My Lai. There the enlisted were still courts-martialled despite having “followed orders”.
We depend on early warning, always have.
We also depend on decisions made by the NCA to assess the threat warnings, determine validity, conference with all NCA and when found to be a valid threat the NCA will bring in the president and his advisors to the conference and the president will be given his options. The president may implement one of the options or do nothing. If an option is selected it is implemented.
This general scenario has been out in the public through various documentaries, books and articles over several decades. The information has been put out there to assure the public over the years that there is no “red button” option.
I spent most of my military career either as a keyturner or as a part of an NCA component. I have never lost a minute of sleep over the idea of an illegal order of this type; even under the Kenyan.
What part of ILLEGAL order don’t you understand?
You fixed nothing and sound foolish.
Thank you.
I think it is the latter. In the event, the president would look in a notebook containing contingency plans and select one of them. These contingency plans are well thought out. Issues of legality of the options are already resolved. The only case that could be of serious concern is if the president was not competent. But this is always a danger in having command authority devolve on one person. I can understand how this might be of concern.
Suppose, for example, a president was embroiled in a scandal and decided to give the order to mount a bombing campaign against some small country so as to get the scandal off the front page. Would the Air Force leadership tell the president that it is illegal? As we have seen, the answer to that is no.
Putting these two together is comparing apples and oranges. But that is how CBS rolls. And that is why they have this stupid story.
What part of insubordination do you not understand? It’s not the general’s place to determine legality.
The Anti-Trump context was clear and the General’s answer broke with his CINC. That damages US National Security with the Nork’s threatening nuclear war on regular basis. Only a blind Never Trumper would parse his words like a Clinton in this situation and defend them. Sorry.
From the picture, the question is whether the OBVIOUS recipients of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be in our nuclear chain of command. Hopefully that is resolved very soon.
Putting these two together is comparing apples and oranges. But that is how CBS rolls. And that is why they have this stupid story.
It’s not us the the media. There is a circuit of expense account financed international “security conferences” where these comments were made. They are virulently Never Trump in my experience. This General knew what sharks he feed this anti-Trump chum too. Guaranteed.
This General should be fired right now for insubordination. He shouldn’t pass go or collect $200. He should be retired to serve the DNC for the rest of his life after he receives a substantial Article 15 and fine for his thoughtless statement.
Another general who doesn’t believe in the chain of command.
There are plenty of Lt. Colonels and Majors who’d resist his orders too I’d bet.
“I spent most of my military career either as a keyturner or as a part of an NCA component. I have never lost a minute of sleep over the idea of an illegal order of this type; even under the Kenyan.”
Good to know. Undoubtedly the reason why Obama fashioned the Iran nuclear deal.
He looks like Frankie The Goofy Pope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.