I respect that. My brother retired while training in the US Navy Seals and is also passionate and as an ex captain very knowledgable about the UCMJ and the military oath. It is scary to me because although I agree the military should uphold the constitution, I worry who is supposed to protect americans from truly THREATENING american terrorist groups. What stops an entire city from bearing arms and attacking their neighbors without military intervention because they are on american soil? Terrorists are still terrorists, whatever soil they are on, and It just IMPLIES that people can hide behind american status to get away with potentially dangerous assembly or even ACTUALLY dangerous assembly. Number three on that list particulary trouble me. That an enemy combantant is free from military action because they are on american soil or an 'american'.

The Constitution of the United States applies to the president of the USA also.
I'm just sayin' because some think that he overrules everything. The last time I checked, USA is still a Republic and not a dictatorship.

I think either you typoed, or I am misundertsanding something. A soldier is NOT required to obey any unlawful order at any time. Yes, he/she may be arrested on the spot and court-martialed for disobeying said order, but they have their chance in military court to defend their actions, and decisions. If the order is found to have been unlawful, then the soldier is released from prison, and reinstated with everything they had prior, and actions are dealt against the person who issued the illegal order.

Does this happen a lot? Not as often as it SHOULD happen, but it does happen.

Actually the supreme court determined in Texas vs White that the original form of secession is null and void. The only way a state can secede is through revolution or if the whole US agrees to it.

So you are not correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States this is one link to the information.

Bush didn't think so...lol

First off, thank you for serving our Country. My sister is Lt. Commander in the Navy, and my nephew in the Marines in Afghanistan right now. I support all those that serve and may God bless all of them.

Secondly,
I think it's great to know we have the best support on the face of this Earth. It's good to know that no matter what happens, our brave men and women are there to protect us even from within our borders.

IF the President of the United States did not have a legal reason to make such an order, then yes the soldiers in question would be duty-bound to disregard it. However, what you are conveniently forgetting, as so many do, that our soldiers (and I am a veteran myself) vow to protect against ALL enemies NO MATTER WHO THEY MIGHT BE.

Let's say I were to get an entire city to back me up in overthrowing the local government and my being put in charge. Basically I become a dictator. The Governor of the state has the legal authority AND OBLIGATION to activate the National Guard, to take back my city and arrest me if possible, kill me if not. This goes for the President of the United States as well, in similar situations.

Being an American does not automatically make you right. Nor does it automatically make you a non-enemy. Only your actions or non-actions make these decisions. So, to outright state that you refuse to follow any order that causes you to go against a fellow American no matter the reason, is nothing but pure treason (Mutiny if it is actually ordered and you refuse).


edit oops, lol. Sorry forgot to close the bold print earlier

yeah, the president takes his own oath to uphold the constitution. It is scary that all these young men go in though under the direction of leaders they need to trust for their very lives. That trust is PARAMOUNT to them surviving, but there are so many DETAILS as to how far that trust is to go. My kid needs to trust me when his life depends on it and so do soldiers. Once that oath is taken, I think it is upon the leaders to not give unlawful orders instead of on the soldiers to decipher every orders lawfulness.

I do think there are exceptions and special circumstances and probably legal red tape around many things. That list just sounded like a beginners guide for how DOMESTIC terrorists can gat around military intervention. A simple we will not obey any unlawful order would have sufficed. That list seemed very specific to only a specific AREA of 'unlawful' orders.

Forget about the secession for now, or any sort of armed uprising ...

Imagine if the soldiers would have disobeyed the order during the Abu Grahib prison scandal.

When will people quit making false statements just because they dont like a decision, or agree with said decision?

The order to go into Iraq was not unlawful in any regards. The President made an on the spot decision for immediate action, which he has the authority to do, and left the arguing to be handled by congress for a final decision to be made. Congress decided that the Presidents decision was in deed proper and correct, and formalized the actions withint he time period granted by the constitution of the United States.

Explain what you mean.

Do you think the soldiers carried out the acts on their own will or do you think they were following a direct order?

Is this the torture thing? I am not remembering what the scandal was, sorry.

I think the leaders were solely responsible for any unlawful orders they gave at that camp. A soldier following an order should not be held responsible in my opinion, is just creates confusion about when an ORDER is an order. In a tight and life threatening environment like the us military soldiers cannot afford and soldiers do not always have time to disect every order as to its lawfulness, that is the captains job to determine before he gives it, or it should be.

during a moment of aggression, I agree that a soldier should not be able to be held liable for following an unlawful order, as he/she doe snto have the time to think about it first. However, let's say that you, me, and Ghandi were all soldiers at a prison camp. The prisoners were following directions, complacent, and exceptionally well-behaved. Our commander decides he wants to try and get more information out of them than they are telling, so he orders us to waterboard the prisoners until we hear what we want to hear. We follow orders without question, even though we know torture is wrong and illegal, because it was a direct order.

Do you think we should face punishment? Or just the commander giving the orders?

that is why we have National Guard and State Guards and FBI

although the US Military is forbidden from deploying on American soil to prevent the US Government from using them against the people. There are some really narrow instances where troops have been deployed on American soil



in 1921 in West Virginia, outright war broke out between miners trying to unionize and managment goons. The US Army was sent in to restore order in this instance

In 1932, the "Bonus Army" marched on Washington, veterans demanding benefits from their actions in WW1. The DC police tried to disperse the crowd and only managed to shoot a couple of em. President Hoover ordered Douglas McArthur to disperse the crowds. The Posse Comitatus Act did not appply to DC at the time since it is a Federal District

In 1943 race riots struck Detroit. The mayor and the Governor asked Pres Roosevelt to declare martial law and Federal troops took over Detroit and restored order

1967, Detroit, again a race riot. The Governor sent in National Guard troops and Lyndon Johnson ordered the US Military in also to restore oder

1968, Martin Luther King was assasinated. The rioting in Washington DC was so bad that Federal troops were ordered to protect the capitol. Machine guns were set up on the steps of the Capitol building and the White House

In 1980, 350 Federal troops were deployed to Wounded Knee to put down the American Indian Movement rebellion led by the means brothers

No matter what is being thrown in here, the war, secession it is still very comforting to know that a president does NOT have the ultimate power in controlling the American people.

Proud of my military

Well, to be fair, in the Abu Grahib prison torture, anyone who saw the images can see, that the ones convicted of torturing the prisoners found enjoyment doing it so and couldn't care less if they lived or died.
I'm not gonna post pictures to prove it because they are very graphic. Every case regarding unlawful orders or following unlawful orders are a special case, regarding the circumstances, that's what I mean.