[yldstrk]

The general is correct. We as officers are taught to seek clarification of unclear orders. You want some checks and balances right? Yes, the general is correct. We as military officers are not to follow illegal orders. There is no I was following orders defense.

This differentiates us from say the Soviets or the Chinese with their authoritarian command structure. We are far superior because we ask all to think with their brains.

[Leaning Right]

> The general is correct. We as officers are taught to seek clarification of unclear orders. You want some checks and balances right? Yes, the general is correct. We as military officers are not to follow illegal orders. <

Good post there. You beat me to it. And from the quotes in the article, the general did a decent job answering the question.

But the question to the general wasn’t meant to clarify the whole when-to-obey issue. The question was, of course, meant to embarrass Trump.

[eclecticEel]

No, the problem is not in the content of what he said; it’s that he shouldn’t be speaking on the subject at all in public. He has no business engaging in partisan politics.

[Rannug]

“The general is correct. We as officers are taught to seek clarification of unclear orders. You want some checks and balances right? Yes, the general is correct. We as military officers are not to follow illegal orders. There is no I was following orders defense.”

You’d better stick with your ponies poker.

[elcid1970]

Any officer has a duty to disobey an illegal order. He may also have to decide if it’s worth a court martial.

In Vietnam we were directed not to make statements to the press without the commander’s approval. This was redundant since we weren’t sure of the pressies’ intentions so all they got from us in the A.O. were cold stares.

But in this case there’s just the teensiest insinuation in the G.O.’s public statement that Trump is a nuclear madman.

For that, can him. Too sensitive a post.

[odawg]

“The general is correct.”

You mean he is correct in publicly saying he would disobey the President?

When the nation’s life is imperiled and some subordinate claims to have veto power over the president?

And when you have about 5 minutes to respond to a nuclear situation?

[Lockbox]

It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

https://www.thebalance.com/military-orders-3332819

[RFEngineer]

The soon to be relieved general advocates arguing with the commander-in-chief, not simply clarifying an “illegal” order. This officer is not fit for command unless he was misquoted.