• 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
Yes, I remember memorizing my general orders. Note number 6, it is important to this discussion.
 
Redress said:
Yes, I remember memorizing my general orders. Note number 6, it is important to this discussion.
Click to expand...

It blows your argument out of the water is what it does.
 
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...

I guess that would preclude a President from performing open heart surgery at VA hospitals as well.;)
(The Constitution does not require the suspension of common sense)
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Yes, I remember memorizing my general orders. Note number 6, it is important to this discussion.
Click to expand...

I did. I was actually going to point that one out specifically to you. That one has specifically who can give you orders while on watch. The President is not one of those people.

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.

The President is not the same as any of the mentioned positions.
 
Devil505 said:
(The Constitution does not require the suspension of common sense)
Click to expand...

That's why a functional and rigid chain of command exists, because from reading this thread, there are some folks who would gladly suspend common sense.
 
apdst said:
That's why a functional and rigid chain of command exists, because from reading this thread, there are some folks who would gladly suspend common sense.
Click to expand...

Speaking of common sense, if you were still in the military, would YOU refuse a legal order from the POTUS if he gave you one?
 
Devil505 said:
Speaking of common sense, if you were still in the military, would YOU refuse a legal order from the POTUS if he gave you one?
Click to expand...

It would depend very much on the order. Plus, it would depend on if my chain of command made amswerable directly to the president. Care to work up a few, "what-ifs", and I can tell you yes/no on each?
 
apdst said:
It would depend very much on the order. Plus, it would depend on if my chain of command made amswerable directly to the president. Care to work up a few, "what-ifs", and I can tell you yes/no on each?
Click to expand...

OK...You are an Army private on fire watch & the POTUS comes up to you & orders you to chew some gum..... & then stick it onto the tip of your nose for the balance of your watch.
 
roguenuke said:
I did. I was actually going to point that one out specifically to you. That one has specifically who can give you orders while on watch. The President is not one of those people.

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.

The President is not the same as any of the mentioned positions.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. The reason in that case for the only is you are in a specialized situation. An order to do other than your watch orders are illegal orders. However, notice the key point, which is that your CO can give you an order directly without going through the chain of command. If you are not on watch, then the president can give you orders directly, without the chain of command as well. The chain of command argument is false.
 
Redress said:
You miss the point. The reason in that case for the only is you are in a specialized situation. An order to do other than your watch orders are illegal orders. However, notice the key point, which is that your CO can give you an order directly without going through the chain of command. If you are not on watch, then the president can give you orders directly, without the chain of command as well. The chain of command argument is false.
Click to expand...

The point is that it is not false in all circumstances, specifically while on watch. The CO better know what's going on with his equipment/base/personnel, so yes, he can bypass the rest of that specific chain, because of that fact. However, anyone not in your specific chain while on watch, their orders should all be cleared through someone in that chain of command prior to you following them.
 
apdst said:
It involves the chain of command. Are you now saying that since the president is a civilian, he can bypass military regulations at will?
Click to expand...

No it does not. He is the supreme authority period. Being in the military I figure you should know this. :roll:

The president can give any lawful order he wishes. No one is talking about ridicules fallacy situations with the president ordering people to jump in a fly helicopters without training or any such nonsense. That is what you are trying to make it about, and to be honest that argument is just blowing of smoke.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
OK...You are an Army private on fire watch & the POTUS comes up to you & orders you to chew some gum..... & then stick it onto the tip of your nose for the balance of your watch.
Click to expand...

I would refuse on the grounds that the order isn't pertinent to my mission, would distract me from my watch and would be personally demeaning to me, therefore it's an unlawful order.



Blackdog said:
No it does not. He is the supreme authority period. Being in the military I figure you should know this. :roll:

The president can give any lawful order he wishes. No one is talking about ridicules fallacy situations with the president ordering people to jump in a fly helicopters without training or any such nonsense. That is what you are trying to make it about, and to be honest that argument is just blowing of smoke.
Click to expand...


That's right, any lawful order. An order that violates regulations isn't a lawful order. An order that doesn't go through the proper channels could possibly be an unlawful order and therefore a soldier wouldn't be obligated to obey such an order.

I think the confusion that exists among my opponents in this debate, is that they are confused about what constitutes an unlawful order. AS I've said before, any order that violates regulations, creates undue risk, or violates established doctrine, can be an unlawful order.

A good example of would be thepresident ordering soldiers not to toss a grenade into a room, before entering the room to clear it, because of the risk of collateral damage. That would be an unlawful order, because it violates combat doctrine, creates undue risk and soldiers could either ignore the order and throw grenades anyway, or use other means, besides tactical entry, to clear a building.
 
apdst said:
That's right, any lawful order. An order that violates regulations isn't a lawful order. An order that doesn't go through the proper channels could possibly be an unlawful order and therefore a soldier wouldn't be obligated to obey such an order.

I think the confusion that exists among my opponents in this debate, is that they are confused about what constitutes an unlawful order. AS I've said before, any order that violates regulations, creates undue risk, or violates established doctrine, can be an unlawful order.

A good example of would be thepresident ordering soldiers not to toss a grenade into a room, before entering the room to clear it, because of the risk of collateral damage. That would be an unlawful order, because it violates combat doctrine, creates undue risk and soldiers could either ignore the order and throw grenades anyway, or use other means, besides tactical entry, to clear a building.
Click to expand...

No.

The confusion is you don't want to admit your premise was flawed so you tried to change the goal post. We understand perfectly you are dodging.

Here is your 2nd statement in this thread...

"The military can't be micro-managed by the president, especially a president that has zero military experience, or education." - apdst

It has been proved one hundred times over he can do this. This has nothing to do with it being unlawful, or the President giving unlawful orders.

Your original assertion about the field commander can't even be defended.

I would also like to point out military experience has nothing to do with it. So trying to disparage a President by his military service or lack there of is again bull****.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I would refuse on the grounds that the order isn't pertinent to my mission, would distract me from my watch and would be personally demeaning to me, therefore it's an unlawful order.
Click to expand...

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......... "
 
Devil505 said:
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......... "
Click to expand...

He is right. That would be an illegal order and it can be refused under the UCMJ.

Please don't start with unreasonable assertions. Not all orders need to be followed blindly as some are possibly illegal.
 
Blackdog said:
He is right. That would be an illegal order and it can be refused under the UCMJ.

Please don't start with unreasonable assertions. Not all orders need to be followed blindly as some are possibly illegal.
Click to expand...

Why would that order be illegal? (silly..yes...Illegal??...what law would that order be violating?)
 
Last edited:
Here's an idea, hope it hasn't been mentioned before.

How about the Soldiers have the final say on military matters. Not the officers, but the actual soldiers, since they are the ones that will fight, be injured, or worse, die.

Not supporting this idea, but just throwing it out there.
 
George VI said:
Here's an idea, hope it hasn't been mentioned before.

How about the Soldiers have the final say on military matters. Not the officers, but the actual soldiers, since they are the ones that will fight, be injured, or worse, die.

Not supporting this idea, but just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...

So basically.....an armed, leaderless gang eh?..Sounds great!:thumbdown
 
George VI said:
Here's an idea, hope it hasn't been mentioned before.

How about the Soldiers have the final say on military matters. Not the officers, but the actual soldiers, since they are the ones that will fight, be injured, or worse, die.

Not supporting this idea, but just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...

This won't really work very well. Any good servicemember knows that this is a bad idea. There are too many differences in opinions among servicemen and women on what should be done and how to do it when it comes to overall strategies.

As my husband puts it "great initiative, bad judgement".
 
Devil505 said:
Why would that order be illegal? (silly..yes...Illegal??...what law would that order be violating?)
Click to expand...

An order doesn't neccessarily have to violate the law to be illegal. In the service illegal/unlawful orders have a very broad meaning.
 
Devil505 said:
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......... "
Click to expand...

You just can't imagine how much I would love to be court martialed for something like that.
 
apdst said:
An order doesn't neccessarily have to violate the law to be illegal. In the service illegal/unlawful orders have a very broad meaning.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.It's the very definition of illegal.
 
Devil505 said:
Yes it does.It's the very definition of illegal.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom