I mean, do you really want the military to go, ‘hey, we know y’all elected this guy, but we don’t like him, so we’re going to just get rid of him’? Just because they’d be getting rid of a guy we don’t like this time doesn’t make it a good thing.
No, but I do want them to refuse to follow illegal orders.
To tell the Sec Def “No, I won’t be showing up” is deny a lawful order. Your boss can tell you to be somewhere.
If the US Military starts to play political games, like denying an otherwise lawful order because it came from an asshole, they’re breaking different parts of their own internal rules.
That said, if the civilian arm in charge of the military, e.g. the executive branch, decides to say that the Army can, and should, unilaterally bomb unidentified boats in their region for ‘defence purposes’, that’s now a lawful order so you can’t deny that one.
And as an average joe, you can beat the rap (in thirty years when they pardon you) but you can’t beat the ride. Enjoy your DD.
No, but I do want them to refuse to follow illegal orders.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too my guy.
What does that even mean?
To tell the Sec Def “No, I won’t be showing up” is deny a lawful order. Your boss can tell you to be somewhere.
If the US Military starts to play political games, like denying an otherwise lawful order because it came from an asshole, they’re breaking different parts of their own internal rules.
That said, if the civilian arm in charge of the military, e.g. the executive branch, decides to say that the Army can, and should, unilaterally bomb unidentified boats in their region for ‘defence purposes’, that’s now a lawful order so you can’t deny that one.
And as an average joe, you can beat the rap (in thirty years when they pardon you) but you can’t beat the ride. Enjoy your DD.
I mean yes. Just because the president says something doesn’t make it legal. Now everything he says might be legal but who knows.
Irrelevant comment.