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 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 191

Thread: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

  1. #171
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Well good for you! (slaps the cuffs on apdst)..Tell it to the judge

    "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements......... "
    You just can't imagine how much I would love to be court martialed for something like that.
    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.

  2. #172
    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
    An order doesn't neccessarily have to violate the law to be illegal. In the service illegal/unlawful orders have a very broad meaning.
    Yes it does.It's the very definition of illegal.

  3. #173
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Yes it does.It's the very definition of illegal.
    Military law isn't actually like civilian laws. For instance, orders that would violate military rules against hazing or taking attention away from watchstanding responsibilities unnecessarily or violating safety are examples of unlawful orders. You do not have to follow unlawful orders from anyone in your chain of command. However, there are gray areas to this. For instance, the example you gave is not a lawful order because its only purpose is to expose you to humiliation since he ordered the person to chew the gum and then put it on his nose. Now the gray area for this would be if he caught the watchstander chewing gum, and ordered him to put it on his nose. Most chains of command would see this as a lawful order even though it is silly, so it would be best to follow it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #174
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    The President determines the political objective. He determines when a military solution is needed through consultation with his Sec State (i.e., diplomatic options are exhausted). He consulted with his Sec Defense and high level officers to develop the appropriate strategy to meet the political objective. He approves the plan, and its execution. Therefore, the President is in full control of the military.

    Of Congress is involved to the extent necessary to gain approval to undertake the military option.

    I think the first and third options are basically the same. The President having full control does not imply that he tell each soldier when to fire his weapon.
    Last edited by American; 10-07-09 at 12:45 PM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #175
    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 roguenuke View Post
    Military law isn't actually like civilian laws. For instance, orders that would violate military rules against hazing or taking attention away from watchstanding responsibilities unnecessarily or violating safety are examples of unlawful orders. You do not have to follow unlawful orders from anyone in your chain of command. However, there are gray areas to this. For instance, the example you gave is not a lawful order because its only purpose is to expose you to humiliation since he ordered the person to chew the gum and then put it on his nose. Now the gray area for this would be if he caught the watchstander chewing gum, and ordered him to put it on his nose. Most chains of command would see this as a lawful order even though it is silly, so it would be best to follow it.
    There is nothing in either military or civil law that protects a soldier from punishment for disobeying a "Silly" order. I'm not an attorney but ...unlawful means exactly what it says: A violation of a law. (any Judge Advocates in the crowd?)

  6. #176
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    There is nothing in either military or civil law that protects a soldier from punishment for disobeying a "Silly" order. I'm not an attorney but ...unlawful means exactly what it says: A violation of a law. (any Judge Advocates in the crowd?)
    We have hazing laws. Hazing does not have to involve physical acts of violence or blatant ridicule.
    http://fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/secnavinst/1610_2a.pdf
    SECNAV Stresses Zero Tolerance of Hazing Events | US Navy Press Releases Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

    A couple of examples of "silly" orders that could be considered hazing per my Leading PO course. Ordering a new sailor to get an ID10T form. Ordering a new sailor to feed the shaft seals.

    Now hopefully, our President would not be giving such orders. It would be up to the person's chain of command as to whether or not the order was actually unlawful. But even if it was viewed as a lawful order, due to its nature, I'd be willing to bet you that the only punishment a person would receive for disobeying it would be either verbal counseling or a counseling chit. It most likely would not even make it up to NJP, let alone a court martial. And I'd be curious to hear what the President's reasoning behind giving such an order would be.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #177
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Yes it does.It's the very definition of illegal.
    In the military, as defined by the UCMJ, any order that violates Department of Defense, or Department of The Army regulations is an illegal/unlawful order.
    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.

  8. #178
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    There is nothing in either military or civil law that protects a soldier from punishment for disobeying a "Silly" order. I'm not an attorney but ...unlawful means exactly what it says: A violation of a law. (any Judge Advocates in the crowd?)
    If that, "silly", order is inconsistent with, or a violation of regulations, or standing orders, there's protection from punishment for disobeying such an order.
    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. #179
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Actually, there are some orders the President cannot directly issue to military personnel due to his lack of knowledge. I know that when Pres. Bush was aboard our ship, he was going to tour the Reactor spaces. Including the reactor control space. The personnel who directly operate the reactors were informed that, due to reactor safety regulations, the President could not touch the controls for the reactor, nor could he order the personnel to do anything with those controls without express permission from the officer in charge. The President does not have the knowledge of how our reactors operate and could cause a major problem.
    2 Different issues.

    1) Safety concerns for the President's life & others around him would in theory be enough to stop him from touching the controls the same way that safety concerns would stop him from traveling through certain parts of the world. That is not what is being argued. Those are common sense rules. The President (I hope) wouldn't 1) try to play around with the commands on a ship and 2) give orders that may endanger those around him without proper input from people around him.

    We're talking about whether the President's orders would have to be followed if one didn't think they were legal. We're talking more in the sense of the President ordering the shelling a village somewhere in Somalia and a ship's seamen(not using the correct word, I know) refusing to do so for whatever reason.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #180
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post

    We're talking about whether the President's orders would have to be followed if one didn't think they were legal.
    And, quite simply, the answer would be no. One would not be obligated to follow an unlawful order issued by the president.
    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 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 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
  •