• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

Who Should Have Final Say On Military Matters?

  • The President-Civilian Control

    Votes: 23 54.8%

  • The Joint Chiefs-The Military Professionals

    Votes: 0 0.0%

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

    Votes: 19 45.2%
  • Total voters
    42
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

The president isn't a line officer. Only line officers can give direct orders to combat units. That's Army 101 stuff.
 
apdst said:
The president isn't a line officer. Only line officers can give direct orders to combat units. That's Army 101 stuff.
Click to expand...

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:
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
apdst said:
No where in there does it say that he can issue orders directly to line units.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. :roll:

What part of "Commander and Chief" are you misunderstanding?

apdst said:
Besides that, he doesn't have the qualifications to issue such orders, thereby making those orders, illegal in military terms.
Click to expand...

This is why he has military and civilian advisor's.

Also point out why this is illegal? Or where it says this is illegal?

So far you have submitted nothing to prove your point.

apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ridicules fallacy argument. The President would not have to.

apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

More fallacy. :roll:

Let me leave you with your own words yet again...

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

Again the rest of your argument is nothing but fallacy and double speak.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You have got to be kidding. :roll:

What part of "Commander and Chief" are you misunderstanding?



This is why he has military and civilian advisor's.

Also point out why this is illegal? Or where it says this is illegal?

So far you have submitted nothing to prove your point.



Ridicules fallacy argument. The President would not have to.



More fallacy. :roll:

Let me leave you with your own words yet again...

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

Again the rest of your argument is nothing but fallacy and double speak.
Click to expand...

Hence, the president doesn't have the last say on combat tactics.
 
apdst said:
Hence, the president doesn't have the last say on combat tactics.
Click to expand...

But he could by law if he deemed it necessary.

End of story.

I also notice you ignored all my questions to your bogus replies. :sinking:

Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
But he could by law if he deemed it necessary.

End of story.

I also notice you ignored all my questions to your bogus replies.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions to every rule, of course.

However, AR-600-20 details the Army's Command Policy and explains in detail how the chain of command is to be utilized and gives no provision for circumvention of the chain of command.

a. The chain of command assists commanders at all levels to achieve their primary responsibility of accomplishing the unit's assigned mission while caring for personnel and property in their charge. A simple and direct chain of command facilitates the transmittal of orders from the highest to the lowest levels in a minimum of time and with the least chance of misinterpretation. The command channel extends upward in the same manner for matters requiring official communication from subordinate to senior.

AR_600-20
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Besides that, he doesn't have the qualifications to issue such orders, thereby making those orders, illegal in military terms.
Click to expand...

The POTUS does not need whatever qualifications you think he needs to issue orders. And even if he did you'd be hard pressed to find a single President who gave military orders without the input of military advisers. Even Bush as misguided as his orders were had the input of people in the military. The Constitution grants the President the authority/power to make such orders.
 
apdst said:
There are exceptions to every rule, of course.

However, AR-600-20 details the Army's Command Policy and explains in detail how the chain of command is to be utilized and gives no provision for circumvention of the chain of command.
Click to expand...

Again this has nothing to do with the civilian president.

You have no argument and are just blowing smoke at this point.
 
Blackdog said:
Again this has nothing to do with the civilian president.

You have no argument and are just blowing smoke at this point.
Click to expand...

Don't stop him though, I am having a lot of fun watching aspdt make himself look foolish.
 
Blackdog said:
Again this has nothing to do with the civilian president.

You have no argument and are just blowing smoke at this point.
Click to expand...

It involves the chain of command. Are you now saying that since the president is a civilian, he can bypass military regulations at will?
 
Hatuey said:
The POTUS does not need whatever qualifications you think he needs to issue orders. And even if he did you'd be hard pressed to find a single President who gave military orders without the input of military advisers. Even Bush as misguided as his orders were had the input of people in the military. The Constitution grants the President the authority/power to make such orders.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another great example of how the president can't just do what he wants, simply by virtue of being the president.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would fall under the category of unlawful order. He still could have ordered you to hold his coat, just not mess with the reactor. That is nothing at all like what aspdt is talking about, and has zero to do with the chain of command.
 
Redress said:
That would fall under the category of unlawful order. He still could have ordered you to hold his coat, just not mess with the reactor. That is nothing at all like what aspdt is talking about, and has zero to do with the chain of command.
Click to expand...

No, he couldn't have ordered you to hold his coat. It's illegal for superiors to order a soldier to perform a personal favor. Just like a general can't order you to wash his car, the president can't order you hold his coat. It would be a violation of military regulations and therefore, and unlawful order.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
That would fall under the category of unlawful order. He still could have ordered you to hold his coat, just not mess with the reactor. That is nothing at all like what aspdt is talking about, and has zero to do with the chain of command.
Click to expand...

No, actually this is still wrong. He could not break the chain of command, because he did not hold positional authority. Even if it was Pres. Jimmy Carter, who was a Nuke officer, and had been through Nuke school, and knew how the reactors operate, any of his orders concerning the operation of the reactor would have to go through the officer in charge. It's referred to as positional authority.
A military guard has the authority to stop and detain even the President if he has been given orders that no one can enter his space. It is one of our general orders of a sentry. In fact, if a guard was given that order and still allowed the President to go through without checking to ensure clearance, the guard could then face a court martial.

And actually, due to the specific nature of watchstanding and the fact that your attention should be on whatever you are watching, he still couldn't have ordered the watchstander to hold his coat or pretty much anything else while the watchstander was on watch.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
No, actually this is still wrong. He could not break the chain of command, because he did not hold positional authority. Even if it was Pres. Jimmy Carter, who was a Nuke officer, and had been through Nuke school, and knew how the reactors operate, any of his orders concerning the operation of the reactor would have to go through the officer in charge. It's referred to as positional authority.
A military guard has the authority to stop and detain even the President if he has been given orders that no one can enter his space. It is one of our general orders of a sentry. In fact, if a guard was given that order and still allowed the President to go through without checking to ensure clearance, the guard could then face a court martial.
Click to expand...

Positional Authority is what gives an MP the authority to write the president a speeding ticket and the president can't pull rank on the issueing MP.


And actually, due to the specific nature of watchstanding and the fact that your attention should be on whatever you are watching, he still couldn't have ordered the watchstander to hold his coat or pretty much anything else while the watchstander was on watch.
Click to expand...

The president doesn't have the authority to relieve a watch post and a soldier who gives into the president's unlawful order to quit his post would be in violation of standing general orders and therefore subject to court martial.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
No, actually this is still wrong. He could not break the chain of command, because he did not hold positional authority. Even if it was Pres. Jimmy Carter, who was a Nuke officer, and had been through Nuke school, and knew how the reactors operate, any of his orders concerning the operation of the reactor would have to go through the officer in charge. It's referred to as positional authority.
A military guard has the authority to stop and detain even the President if he has been given orders that no one can enter his space. It is one of our general orders of a sentry. In fact, if a guard was given that order and still allowed the President to go through without checking to ensure clearance, the guard could then face a court martial.

And actually, due to the specific nature of watchstanding and the fact that your attention should be on whatever you are watching, he still couldn't have ordered the watchstander to hold his coat or pretty much anything else while the watchstander was on watch.
Click to expand...

You are not quite accurate. The chain of command can and is "broken" every say. Orders do not have to go through every step of the chain to be legal. The chain of command is about who has authority, and order of flow. However, if some one not directly above you in the chain gives you an order, it is still an order that has to be obeyed.
 
Redress said:
However, if some one not directly above you in the chain gives you an order, it is still an order that has to be obeyed.
Click to expand...


It depends on the order, but generally speaking, that's incorrect.
 
Redress said:
You are not quite accurate. The chain of command can and is "broken" every say. Orders do not have to go through every step of the chain to be legal. The chain of command is about who has authority, and order of flow. However, if some one not directly above you in the chain gives you an order, it is still an order that has to be obeyed.
Click to expand...

Not while the person is on watch. Here are the eleven general orders of a sentry (a watchstander is a sentry):


1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.

2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.

3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.

4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guard house than my own.

5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.

6. To receive, obey and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Command Duty Officer, Officer of the Deck, and Officers and Petty Officers of the Watch only.

7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.

8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.

9. To call the Officer of the Deck in any case not covered by instructions.

10. To salute all officers and all colors and standards not cased.

11. To be especially watchful at night, and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.

Eleven General Orders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom