User deleted post
I could be wrong, but I dont think the Chiefs are in the chain of command.
The order would go through a regional command and most likely flat out refused up and down the chain.
The Joint Chiefs are in the chain of command. The chief of staff of whatever branch you are in is in your chain. It’s one of the first things you learn at basic training.
I'm looking at Organization and Management of the Department of Defense published by Directorate for Organizational Policy and Decision Support. On page 8 it shows the chain of command and the lines clearly go from the CinC to SecDef to Combatant Commands and around the chiefs
That's all I've got on that.
Thank you. You reckon it'd hit their desk before or after, though? I know both the government and the military are built on bureaucracy, but I have no part in it so I have no idea where the pipes all go to.
I would say normally, yes, any plans would’ve been drawn up with them involved strategically anyway.
However, if the wannabe dictator gets control again, who knows? I have no doubts they had to tactfully guide and ignore some of his suggestions in the past.
Pretty sure that Gen Milley told the president to go fuck himself.
Can't even lie, if that's true then it may be the most relieving thing I've heard thus far 😅
I dunno. I gotta take care of my family n I just don't know if that's even gonna be possible in the agonizingly near future. I'm genuinely scared shitless for them.
Oh yeah, I'm sure it was a proper ballet on a 2x4 for anyone behind em. I still can't deny that this reckless consolidation of power is scaring the hell out of me, even if hundreds of people are scrambling to keep things on the level.
You serve the Constitution and the country, not the person in office.
Supposed to anyway...
In what capacity?
I really hate parroting rhetoric, but I suppose it is the most effective. What if he really did try to order ST6 to just, murder someone
I wanted to make sure I understood what you were going for before I answered.
As another commenter said, the Chain of Command exists for this reason. ChaIrman of the Joint Chiefs or the Secretary of Defense/Homeland Security (however they try to spin it, I'm sure would involve either) plus every individual commander between the POTUS and units on the ground have the ability and duty to disobey unlawful orders.
Then you have as a law enforcement capacity which would fall under Martial Law. Outside of that, you could refer to the Posse Comitatus Act which explicitly forbids the military from acting as a policing unit.
Under the UCMJ, an order meets the standard of lawfulness if it serves a valid military function. You'd be hard-pressed to find an entire legal proceeding or regulatory body that would state the summary execution of an American citizen at the whims of POTUS meet that burden.
For example, if an NCO were to demand an energy drink from you and, upon your refusal, decided to punish you via ordering you to low-crawl the length of your barracks, it would be unlawful.
Duly noted, n thank ya. I'm definitely coming from a place of ignorance on this, so I'm grateful as hell for all the breakdown.
Happy to do it.
Bruh....Trump tried to overthrow Congress and stay in power, he raised an insurrection and sent a mob to disrupt the election certification. And he got immunity for that, actual results and deaths.
Biden and the Seal Tteam 6 was a hypothetical.
Trump and Jan 6th, that shit did happend, and he got immunity for that.
Don't be a dummy.
There is precedent for this. Martial law is real and defined in us law. Nothing new needed to happen since, say, 1863 when active duty soldiers opened fire on crowds in New York City.
Officers and enlisted personnel are legally obligated to refuse any illegal orders.
As to exactly when and how an officer or enlisted person has the right to arrest the person giving the illegal order, I'm not a JAG and that shit is insanely complicated.
Not the question you asked, but for what it's worth, naval officers, particularly commanders of commissioned naval vessels while at sea, generally have broader authority both legally and traditionally compared to their counterparts in other forces. Commanders of submarines, particularly ones carrying strategic weapons, have even more authority. I know for a fact that they can consult with their XO and if they are both in agreement, they can refuse orders to fire their strategic weapons purely based on their discretion and effectively nobody can question it at sea or when they are back on shore. That has happened. Multiple times. Why am I mentioning this? Because theoretically those orders came directly from the President. And they were refused by an individual sub commander (with either a Captain or Commander rank depending on the time). So there are examples of relatively low ranking officers having the right to refuse what could have very well been direct orders from the commander in chief with no repercussions purely because they thought it more appropriate to not execute the order.
Bottom line is, in our all volunteer force, officers carry a lot of individual authority and are expected to exercise sound judgement around that authority.
I know if I was still on active duty, I’d nope out on that and recommend that everyone else do the same. If I’m wrong, I’ll take the court-martial.
I think you need to distinguish what would happen to him, to the military, and the public. To him, maybe nothing. Maybe death. To the troops, turmoil. I suspect that very few will accept that order. To the people, civil war. Americans have been free for a long time. They aren't used to dictatorial rule. It will be a lot less fun than MAGAs might think.
We’ve gone 235 years without having to consider this, yet one current candidate has caused us to.
That's just the thing though, innit? It aint just one fellow showing his ass, it's a lot of very powerful folk nodding their head along. The wells been spiked, so to speak.
Nothing, it has already happened. Obama drone striked an American without charge or trial.
Very very different facts and circumstances.
No, it just doesn't fit your narrative........
https://youtu.be/LozQg0oX-Gw?si=TpJ_kNid3GxS1490
Chain of command exists for a reason. You can't have people questioning every order. You do as ordered. Including lighting people up.
This is not true at all. You do not have to follow illegal orders period.
That's a good point, too. It's only legal for a president to give the order in an official capacity, but an illegal act can be denied. But would it even work out that way? Would it properly be considered illegal if it's a "legal order" from the Commander in Chief? That aspect seems a bit more blurry, at least to me.
Just to second this, you can only be charged under article 90 and/or article 92 of the UCMJ if the order given is lawful (among other stipulations).
An order to kill an American citizen not associated with Al-Qaeda or other militant groups as listed in the 2001 AUMF Brief published by the Office of the President in 2016 would be unlawful.
Those are cops, not soldiers, also that isn’t extrajudicial killing of a US citizen.
Point is definitely taken, especially since it's kinda our whole schtick to break folk down n rebuild em. Just curious as to where the average soldier or marine might draw the line, if they'd even ever draw one to begin with.
The actual Joint Chiefs would have to decide whether it was a lawful order or not.
The military is not just a bunch of mindless automatons that go wherever the president points.