View Poll Results: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • The President-Civilian Control

    26 52.00%
  • The Joint Chiefs-The Military Professionals

    0 0%
  • The President, but the military should decide battlefield tactics.

    24 48.00%
Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 191

Thread: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Nope, the president doesn't have the authority to circumvent the chain of command, nor does he have the authority to issue ilegal orders.

    Hint: Illegal orders aren't just those that violate internatonal law. Issueing an order to perform a task in an unsafe manner is an illegal order, as well.
    I'm responding to this not to try to educate you, but to make sure other forum members know you are dead wrong on this.
    By definition, an illegal order is an order that violates a law we are bound by......PERIOD. (makes no difference if that law is international or strictly U.S..........If we are bound by that, law, an order to violate it should not be followed.

    Any other lawful order....No matter how silly, dangerous, dumb or improper you may think it is...MUST be obeyed or a court martial is warranted.
    Last edited by Devil505; 09-30-09 at 11:26 AM.

  2. #122
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Nope, the president doesn't have the authority to circumvent the chain of command, nor does he have the authority to issue ilegal orders.

    Hint: Illegal orders aren't just those that violate internatonal law. Issueing an order to perform a task in an unsafe manner is an illegal order, as well.
    Hmm that would mean that no one in the military would have to shoot anyone since shooting at armed people has a tendency to be unsafe. It would also mean that those courses that those in training have to under go would not have to be done as a person can (and no doubt has) broken a bone or even a neck while going through the course.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #123
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,505

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I think you're missing the point that Redress et. al. are making. They're saying that the president can issue order directly to a particular ground unit. Doing so would be a break of the chain of command.
    The president can do this. He can issue any order to anyone in the military period. He is the Commander and Chief and again the Constitution is crystal clear on this.

    The chain of command is for under ranking individuals to address issues etc. It has literally nothing to do with receiving specific orders up or down the chain.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I brought up the lawful and legal orders point, because Redress that there are no exceptions and that the president has the final say on small unit tactics. If the president is present at your piece and gives some crazy instructions to you on how to load the gun, you're not obligated to follow those instructions, if they either unsafe, violate regulations or doctrine.

    Obviously, there circumstances when the chain of command can and will be broken, such as on the spot corrections for various reasons, or some sort of emergency. D-Day is a good exmaple of how the official chain of command was broken and due to throwing together ad-hoc units, because if the situtation at hand, a new un-official chain of command had to created where you might have a bird colonel leading a platoon size element and his platoon seargent is a corporal.

    Ultimately, the notion of the president giving direct orders to a combat platoon, or a company is so far fetched that it's not even worth arguing about. Besides that, anyone smart enough to make it to the White House is mart enough to know that if he's every in the situation where he has to tramp through the bush with an infantry platoon that his best course of action is to keep his mouth shut and his ears open.

    Proper proticol is for the president to express his intent to his chain of command and the chain of command carry out that mission, in accordance with that intent. Basically, the president tells the chain what outcome he wants and it's up to the chain to figure out how to achieve that outcome. It's silly to think that the president is going to be creating tactical doctrine right down to the company/platoon/squad level.

    Can the president give the president issues orders to a small unit on the battlefield, is it leagal? Constitutionally speaking, sure. Would, or should he tell individual units what tactics to use in a firefight? Certainly not. Could he realistically get away with making such decisions? There's no way that the chain of command would stand for it. It's the reason that it's never happened before.

    When the chain is broken, it will do nothing but muck up the whole system and cause a serious breakdown. My point is, if the president actually had the final say about tactics used by combat units, there are alotta elements of our military that wouldn't exist, the Training and Doctrination Command (TRADOC) would be one of them. There would be no use for corps, division, brigade and battalion commanders if it was at all proper for the president to issue orders directly to line units.

    So, at the end of the day, in reality, the president doesn't have the last say on what combat tactics are to be used on the battlefield.
    Blah blah, It does not make any difference. It has literally nothing to do with the chain of command. The president can issue any order to anyone at anytime in the US military, period.

    Stop trying to sling bull****. You are incorrect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Hey apdst,

    Still waiting to hear who this 1 Star was you Busted.

  5. #125
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I'm responding to this not to try to educate you, but to make sure other forum members know you are dead wrong on this.
    By definition, an illegal order is an order that violates a law we are bound by......PERIOD. (makes no difference if that law is international or strictly U.S..........If we are bound by that, law, an order to violate it should not be followed.

    Any other lawful order....No matter how silly, dangerous, dumb or improper you may think it is...MUST be obeyed or a court martial is warranted.

    You so wrong that there's aren't words to express just how wrong you are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    The president can do this. He can issue any order to anyone in the military period. He is the Commander and Chief and again the Constitution is crystal clear on this.

    The chain of command is for under ranking individuals to address issues etc. It has literally nothing to do with receiving specific orders up or down the chain.



    Blah blah, It does not make any difference. It has literally nothing to do with the chain of command. The president can issue any order to anyone at anytime in the US military, period.

    Stop trying to sling bull****. You are incorrect.

    The president can't violate the chain of command anymore than a private can violate the chain of command. The chain of command exists for a reason. On the battlefield, circumventing the chain of command can get people killed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Hmm that would mean that no one in the military would have to shoot anyone since shooting at armed people has a tendency to be unsafe. It would also mean that those courses that those in training have to under go would not have to be done as a person can (and no doubt has) broken a bone or even a neck while going through the course.

    Military service comes with certain inherent risks that are the nature of the business, however there is a such a thing in the military as, "undue risk". There are certain situations that officers can't order soldiers into and that's a fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #126
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    Hey apdst,

    Still waiting to hear who this 1 Star was you Busted.
    I don't remember his name and I wouldn't tell you if I did.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #127
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,505

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The president can't violate the chain of command anymore than a private can violate the chain of command. The chain of command exists for a reason. On the battlefield, circumventing the chain of command can get people killed.
    It has already been shown you are wrong. Even your own words...

    "Can the president give the president issues orders to a small unit on the battlefield, is it leagal? Constitutionally speaking, sure." - apdst

    Anything else is irrelevant and nothing more than you playing a game of semantics and trying to move goal posts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #128
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    It has already been shown you are wrong. Even your own words...

    "Can the president give the president issues orders to a small unit on the battlefield, is it leagal? Constitutionally speaking, sure." - apdst

    Anything else is irrelevant and nothing more than you playing a game of semantics and trying to move goal posts.
    The president isn't a line officer. Only line officers can give direct orders to combat units. That's Army 101 stuff.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #129
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,505

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The president isn't a line officer. Only line officers can give direct orders to combat units. That's Army 101 stuff.
    Please point out the law that says the president cannot issue a line order?

    I can show you where in the Constitution it says he can.

    "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

    I also know allot of NCO's who would disagree with your assessment.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 10-04-09 at 07:53 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #130
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Please point out the law that says the president cannot issue a line order?

    I can show you where in the Constitution it says he can.

    "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

    I also know allot of NCO's who would disagree with your assessment.
    No where in there does it say that he can issue orders directly to line units. Besides that, he doesn't have the qualifications to issue such orders, thereby making those orders, illegal in military terms. If the president ordered you to fuse your projectiles prior to transport, are you going to do it, or are you going to explain to him in a highly professional manner why that's a bad idea and how it's not going to happen?

    If a doctor, who held the rank of colonel came to your piece and issued you an order, are you going to follow it, if you think it's a bad idea?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •