On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:40:03 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:23:02 +0700, john B.
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:51:09 -0500, technomaNge wrote:
On 08/26/2011 08:17 PM, john B. wrote:
Interesting. Given that he has sworn an oath to obey orders of the
President and the officers placed over him. I wonder how he equates
that with Obama's possession, or lack thereof, of a birth certificate,
as until removed from office he is still the president.
Make that "lawful orders".
See oath at
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...thofenlist.htm
Except that the wording is " I will obey the orders of the President
of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over
me".
and Uniform Code of Military Justice
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
The requirement for the order to be lawful is discussed at:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm
and references the trial of First Lieutenant William Calley for
following an unlawful order.
If President Obama is not qualified to be president by birth,
his orders as Commander in Chief are unlawful.
But read the cites and make up your own mind.
technomaNge
During the review of the Calley case in 1973 the court noted that
"For the inferior to assume to determine the question of the
lawfulness of an order given him by a superior would of itself, as a
general rule, amount to insubordination, and such an assumption
carried into practice would subvert military discipline. Where the
order is apparently regular and lawful on its face, he is not to go
behind it to satisfy himself that his superior has proceeded with
authority, but is to obey it according to its terms, the only
exceptions recognized to the rule of obedience being cases of orders
so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as
to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness
Except in such instances of palpable illegality, which must be of rare
occurrence, the inferior should presume that the order was lawful and
authorized and obey it accordingly, and in obeying it can scarcely
fail to be held justified by a military court."
Based on that precedent the question would be that "is reading read
something on the Internet justification for desertion?"
Cheers,
John B.
When its known widely that the order is illegal..or the issuing officer
has no standing, its the duty of the soldier to refuse to obey it.
Your citation indicates that a person following an APPARENT legal order
is held blameless. When its known that that order was given
Unlawfully...its also the duty of the soldier to refuse to obey it.
Gunner
Go back and read the quotation - which was the court's not mine. You
will see that the court felt that unless the order is "manifestly
beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as
to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness" it is up to the
Troops to obey.
But you are leading up to saying whatever order Calley gave was an
illegal order and shouldn't be obeyed. But stop and think a moment.
There you are taking fire from a village. You are in a rice growing
area and the only cover is the berms between the paddies. People are
getting hit. what do you do?
If I remember correctly the Army's procedure was to call in either
Artillery or Air support and nuke the village. Should the pilot or
artillery officer refuse to obey the request because there might be
non-combatants in the village? Should the pilot and the artillery
commander be A court-martialed because some civilians died?
Cheers,
John B.