I don’t know how long this article has been up, but I do know that it has been up exactly 5 minutes longer that when this guy should have started looking for work.
Read the article. The jack@ss who wrote this is trying to make it a Trump thing because of his ‘bombastic’ statements regarding fat man. The general’s answer is a generic answer which would apply to any bloody president. The writer is an @ss and punk.
"I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," Hyten added. "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated."
There's nothing controversial about this.
Nothing.
All officers are taught to resist “illegal” orders.
This is simply a truism.
However, the vast majority of orders are legal.
The reporter playing “gotcha” interviewing.
Nothing wrong with voicing that to the President. No President would call for a strike without military input and that is when the generals and admirals speak. BUT when the final decision is made the officers MUST follow orders or be relieved on the spot. That’s how it works.
People should read the article. The headline from CBS is truly horrible, biased and misleading.
The chain of command has ample safeguards to ensure that orders involving strategic assets are legal and authenticated. I think it far more likely that this is another case of quotation out of context than anything else.
Answering hypotheticals is always a bad idea because they are so easily twisted. "General, Sir, if you received an order to nuke St. Louis tomorrow would you obey?"
We need to have public drumming out ceremonies, complete with rank and button stripping and marching these fools through the gate.
I don’t understand the controversy. He is duty bound to not follow illegal orders. If the POTUS went berserk and ordered an unprovoked strike, of course he is duty bound disobey if not place him under arrest.
He is responding to a hypothetical question. This isn’t an issue.
It seems to me that this is the job of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
By the time the order gets to this guy, the JCS has already deliberated it and this guy would be disobeying his commanding officer, not the President.
-PJ
Fire to worthless POS now!
another case of a misleading headline:
“I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do,” Hyten added. “And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”
Traitor; gone.
I’m sure our enemies love reading that our resolve may not be solid.
Idiot and traitor.
"I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," Hyten added. "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated.".....LOL!
I think he is mistaken about Trump issuing an illegal order. I believe the nuclear arsenal is under the president’s exclusive control. The general might have chosen immoral, unethical or some similar synonym, but his use of “illegal” displays a dangerous, self-righteous and ignorant understanding of Trump’s authority and the general’s requirement to carry out the CIC’s orders. It’s time to relieve the general and to reeducate everyone on the nuclear control org chart.
Reduce him in rank to E1 and then fire him with a dishonorable discharge.
What part of illegal don’t you understand?
All service members are required to not follow an illegal order.
There are specific nuclear release guidelines that have been in place for years. We practiced them constantly. There are safeguards in place. They are very restrictive and the president is not the sole decision maker; he is the final decision maker. He has specific options to be implemented only after a threat is imminent and verified.
Now, not following a legal order is another thing and is grounds for courts martial and immediate removal.
The general is just stating the rules; only legal orders are valid and to be followed.
I would guess that there are safeguards in place thst require several people to validate a launch, thereby making it a legal launch, but POTUSgives the lainch command.
Firing squad.
Our enemies thank you for making that public, you dumb shite.