this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
322 points (95.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3595 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Among those being mentioned for Trump’s secretary of defense are Christopher Miller, who served temporarily during his administration, Michael Flynn and Mike Pompeo.

Donald Trump is sparking fears among those who understand the inner workings of the Pentagon that he would convert the nonpartisan U.S. military into the muscular arm of his political agenda as he makes comments about dictatorship and devalues the checks and balances that underpin the nation’s two-century-old democracy.

A circle of appointees independent of Trump’s political operation steered him away from ideas that would have pushed the limits of presidential power in his last term, according to books they’ve written and testimony given to Congress. Most were gone by the end. In a new term, many former officials worry that Trump would instead surround himself with loyalists unwilling to say no.

Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tux@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's not true at all. Following an unlawful order is illegal and not a valid excuse.

The officer oath is to support the and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (aka disobeying a direct order) spells out that it only applies to lawful orders.

Anything illegal is non binding, and stating you're following an order is not an excuse. That's literally one of the rules of the Geneva convention.

All that to say, not at all true. What I really would expect if Trump tried pulling this off with the military is a huge amount of resistance and pushback and no one in command really following the illegal orders.

There might be some schism group of crazies who try and jump the chain of command because they're MAGA crazies in the military, but it's definitely a small minority.

The US Military is a volunteer force, the officer corps has been taught and studied the history of these type of bad orders and crazy situations extensively. The NCO corps and rest of the enlisted are not ignorant bumpkins who are ignorant of their jobs and their duty to the constitution.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it really "isn't true at all". While I agree with you, by and large the US military are very competent and truly patriotic, you yourself mention a "schism group of crazies" who would circumvent things. I don't think it's likely they would take over comprehensively, but I worry that the possibility of some critical mass succeeding is there.

I think the US is far more likely to wrangle around what a "lawful order" is than many other countries.

[–] Entropywins@kbin.social 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My experience is only anecdotal, but while I served in the USAF, I saw and expected officers and enlisted personnel to uphold integrity first and excellence in all we do. I did not meet anyone who didn't take their oath seriously or those who would put politics before country. Also the political spectrum I met while enlisted was very broad and I personally doubt the caliber of men and women truly needed to overthrow the government would be on board with the plan due to how seriously we take our oath.

[–] derphurr@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Their oath is to Commander-in-Chief. What are they going to do with placed Pentagon lawyers declaring lawful orders like Gitmo torture.