Weak metaphor, but okay.
It was moronic; not weak. It presumes that Trump would do something illegal. It is a moronic assumption given that NO ONE has claimed or charged Trump with doing anything illegal.
Weak metaphor, but okay.
Top law enforcement officer in US is the Atty General. He does not work for the President. He is NOT the presidents lawyer.
Not to quibble, but every soldier is duty bound to refuse to obey illegal orders.
How does "every soldier" know that an order is illegal? For instance, they're in Afghanistan and are on a mission to root out a nest of Taliban. They approach a small village and are told that the Taliban is entrenched there, that the entire population hates Americans and is heavily armed, but they're going in anyways. They are told to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers at all costs. So they end up slaughtering *everyone* because they believed that everyone was armed or booby-trapped or otherwise dangerous.
Did they act illegally? What about the men and women who marched on David Koresh's compound in Waco? Did they act illegally?
This is a subject NO ONE who has not been to boot camp understands, and very debatable for those who have. My Gunny once explained to me refusing an order better be a hill you are willing to die on, cause you probably will. It seems like I have said that on this forum. But anyway, I probably should not have used that example. I was just trying to explain how the power of an office works. There is a difference in the office of President and the man who is president. Just like the CO.
I've never been to boot camp, although three of my five kids have, and both of my brothers. Please explain further. It's been my understanding that when you are given an order, you obey -- or else. That hill you mentioned.
You can, and are indeed duty bound to refuse an unlawful order. The problem is they can be very difficult to identify. For example it might be a perfectly lawful order to order you to blow up a hut. The NCOIC might have just seen an enemy run into that hut, but you seen a kid run into that hut a few minutes before your Sgt didn't see. You refuse, in the mean time the bad guy picks up an RPG and kills 10 of your fellow Marines. Yep, you are dying on that hill. It is just a very fine line and the point is you have to be damn sure it is not a lawful order something you would be willing to die or ruin your career and life over. Pretty high standards.
Damn. It's a lot like being an urban police officer in a typical American city. Thanks for explaining; I figured it was something like that. Respect highest for our military ppl put in those kinds of situations.
Back to the discussion of civilians and their heavy gun power thinking that we're going to stave off an attack by our American armed forces because it's all like 1776 again. Those guys aren't going to refuse an order to take out a suburb infested with commies/brown ppl/liberals/muslims/mexicans/terrorists/etc.
We are going to be the Hut People in your scenario.
I don't believe we (American Service members) would be less than honorable, I don't think we would kill our fellow citizens without cause. But that was one scenario we discussed lawful orders. It has been a long time since I really thought about this.
It is the office and the order. If I am the Commander of a Marine Company, I can order them to do anything I want to, including going out and getting shot, but, if I order them to pillage a village and keep the stuff for me, then, even though ordering them to do something is legal and part of my duty, I am responsible for ordering them to do things illegal. I would end up having a courts-martial. Trump can order the executive branch to do stuff, but not illegal stuff.
Never once said he could make them do illegal stuff.
Sessions legally had to recuse himself.
It was moronic; not weak. It presumes that Trump would do something illegal. It is a moronic assumption given that NO ONE has claimed or charged Trump with doing anything illegal.
Why do you think US banks refused to loan Trump any money since 2005?
How does "every soldier" know that an order is illegal? For instance, they're in Afghanistan and are on a mission to root out a nest of Taliban. They approach a small village and are told that the Taliban is entrenched there, that the entire population hates Americans and is heavily armed, but they're going in anyways. They are told to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers at all costs. So they end up slaughtering *everyone* because they believed that everyone was armed or booby-trapped or otherwise dangerous.
Did they act illegally? What about the men and women who marched on David Koresh's compound in Waco? Did they act illegally?[/QUOTE
Please stop excusing illegal acts. Soldiers know about the uniform code of military justice. You will recall that "I was following orders" didn't work out very well at the Nuremberg Trials.
How about the My Lai Massacre? Are you excusing that as well? You know that was only one slaughter in Vietnam.
No one in the military today was drafted. Today's soldiers are mercenaries. They took oaths to uphold the Constitution and are obligated to follow laws, not illegal orders.
Federal agents, not the military committed the Koresh compound slaughter.
But law enforcement and military personnel take that same oath. Do they make that oath seriously?
Because he went bankrupt 5 or 6 times and cheated those he owed money? Is that the reason? Then Donny Jr said they got all the financing they needed from Russia. But, trump still has no connection to Russia. Not sure how that works.
How does "every soldier" know that an order is illegal? For instance, they're in Afghanistan and are on a mission to root out a nest of Taliban. They approach a small village and are told that the Taliban is entrenched there, that the entire population hates Americans and is heavily armed, but they're going in anyways. They are told to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers at all costs. So they end up slaughtering *everyone* because they believed that everyone was armed or booby-trapped or otherwise dangerous.
Did they act illegally? What about the men and women who marched on David Koresh's compound in Waco? Did they act illegally?[/QUOTE
Please stop excusing illegal acts. Soldiers know about the uniform code of military justice. You will recall that "I was following orders" didn't work out very well at the Nuremberg Trials.
How about the My Lai Massacre? Are you excusing that as well? You know that was only one slaughter in Vietnam.
No one in the military today was drafted. Today's soldiers are mercenaries. They took oaths to uphold the Constitution and are obligated to follow laws, not illegal orders.
Federal agents, not the military committed the Koresh compound slaughter.
But law enforcement and military personnel take that same oath. Do they make that oath seriously?
The question in her scenario was reasonable.. Why not answer? How does a soldier KNOW when an order is illegal?
The question in her scenario was reasonable.. Why not answer? How does a soldier KNOW when an order is illegal?