Replies

Wonder Warthog: "You keep tap-dancing around the topic.
How does the rank and file soldier decide??
Does he blindly follow the 'duly elected' chain of command?
Or does he follow his oath to the Constitution.
Constantly repeating 'cannot obey unlawful orders' like a mantra is just ignoring the question."

Sorry, but I'm not tap-dancing or ignoring your question, you are ignoring my answer.
It's the correct answer, it's the only possible answer.
All government agencies are charged with obeying and enforcing the law, period.
Commanders cannot issue unlawful orders and if issued such orders cannot be obeyed, period.

You seem to fantasize that means every soldier or police officer needs a lawyer following him/her around to certify that every order issued & received is, indeed, lawful.
That's ludicrous -- broad outlines of lawful behavior are well known, with special training for special situations.

But just so we're certain, you do realize, don't you, that action-adventure movies like, say, Jason Bourne are fantasies?

Fantasy, not real:

"You seem to fantasize that means every soldier or police officer needs a lawyer following him/her around to certify that every order issued & received is, indeed, lawful.

Actually, in law, that is precisely the case "if" the order is sufficiently illegal. That is why I pointed out that the Nuremberg precedents specifically rule out the "I was just following orders" defense.

And we're not talking about "every order", but the very specific situation in which a law has been passed by "duly elected authority", and an order issued for the military to deliberately violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

"That's ludicrous -- broad outlines of lawful behavior are well known, with special training for special situations."

Same mantra, slightly different words. WHAT ARE THOSE OUTLINES and WHAT IS THAT "SPECIAL TRAINING FOR SPECIAL SITUATIONS"? And particularly for the SINGLE ILLEGAL SITUATION specified.

"But just so we're certain, you do realize, don't you, that action-adventure movies like, say, Jason Bourne are fantasies?"

Yes, I do.

Sorry, but I'm not tap-dancing or ignoring your question, you are ignoring my answer. It's the correct answer, it's the only possible answer.

No, your "answer" is doctrinaire, and therefore does not satisfy the question you're being asked.

That you refuse to admit it is to be expected by virtue of your staking out that position in the first place.

But make no mistake, you ARE tap-dancing around the question by giving a doctrinaire answer.