Posted on 11/18/2017 9:53:05 AM PST by ex91B10
This guy is a Harvard desk jockey who got all his promotions to a 2,3,4 star general under Obama.
Trump needs to make an example of this guy, he is an Obama General.
Nominated by Obama to head SAC.
CAN’T BE TRUSTED!
Hyten explained the process that would follow such a command. As head of STRATCOM, Hyten is responsible for overseeing the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
"I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," Hyten added. "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated."
Hyten said he has been trained every year for decades in the law of armed conflict, which takes into account specific factors to determine legality -- necessity, distinction, proportionality, unnecessary suffering and more. Running through scenarios of how to react in the event of an illegal order is standard practice, he said.
"If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life," Hyten said.
These series of paragraphs inform me this safeguard has been in position for decades, spanning many Presidents.
But, of course, CBS spins it to "See how out-of-control Trump is???!? Someone's gotta second-guess the nukes!!!!"
Seems like a no-brainer, but then again, the Obama Schedule C Federal employees should have been gone 10 months ago too.....
There is no guarantee the people who replace them will be any better. The Never Trumpers have so corrupted the beltway GOP that the reliability of any new GOP hires is suspect.
"I think some people think we're stupid," Hyten said in response to a question about such a scenario. "We're not stupid people. We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?"
Hyten explained the process that would follow such a command. As head of STRATCOM, Hyten is responsible for overseeing the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
"I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," Hyten added. "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated."
Hyten said he has been trained every year for decades in the law of armed conflict, which takes into account specific factors to determine legality -- necessity, distinction, proportionality, unnecessary suffering and more. Running through scenarios of how to react in the event of an illegal order is standard practice, he said.
"If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life," Hyten said.
These series of paragraphs inform me this safeguard has been in position for decades, spanning many Presidents.
But, of course, CBS spins it to "See how out-of-control Trump is???!? Someone's gotta second-guess the nukes!!!!"
What is an “illegal” nuke order? That wasn’t made clear in the article and maybe none of that should be discussed in public anyway.
Why was this top commander talking to the press about this stuff? He must have had permission to do this. From whom? Trump?
Retirement announcement
Thanks for clarifying what the general said.
Pull from the Obama playbook, fire him after a litmus test.
> The general is correct. We as officers are taught to seek clarification of unclear orders. You want some checks and balances right? Yes, the general is correct. We as military officers are not to follow illegal orders. <
Good post there. You beat me to it. And from the quotes in the article, the general did a decent job answering the question.
But the question to the general wasn’t meant to clarify the whole when-to-obey issue. The question was, of course, meant to embarrass Trump.
No, the problem is not in the content of what he said; it’s that he shouldn’t be speaking on the subject at all in public. He has no business engaging in partisan politics.
It’s a set up. If he is fired, dems, commies and MSM say, look, Trump is planning something illegal.
That comment made me laugh out loud—for real ;)
I would imagine that the conditions necessary to cause a launch order would be debated and decided on long before the need arrives. That’s why we have war college. I would hope the decision to launch a nuke would not be an emotional one, and would therefore stand up to examination and rigorous debate. By the time that order is given, it would be the most scrutinized order in military history. So, this general is correct, if the order is illegal he has the duty to refuse it. No order of this magnitude would be issued illegally, so he would probably follow it. I do agree with Denzel however, that the true enemy is war.
“Put in that position by Obama 11/16...”
8 years of marxists, maoists & muslims in control of the executive branch. Fundamental transformation...The damage done exceeded even my cynical imagination.
Agreed...We in flyover country are expendable to the elites :(
That’s fecking treason wing wiper.
Sure there is - it’s embodied in the different oaths that enlisted and officers take.
Enlisted oath states “and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Officers oath specifically does not have that line - because historically it is the officer who is supposed to determine and take on the risk of what is and is not an illegal order.
I had a CO tell me to fill out NJP paperwork including sentence prior to going to Captain’s Mast because he already knew what he wanted to do and wanted to speed up the paperwork. I refused that order and explained that I couldn’t do that as it would be a breach of due process. He pondered it a second, but relented.
Laws of war are well established on what is considered an illegal order. For example: ordering the shooting prisoners of war is an illegal order. The person at refusing the order is at risk and must demonstrably prove it is an illegal order, but if they follow an illegal order then they are considered culpable in the illegal order even if all they were doing is “following orders”.
Not saying I agree with the General putting his opinion out there - and think the news here is mangling what he was trying to say. But he should have kept his yap shut anyway.
He can't get a DD as an officer.
At most, he should have said, “We have a process for ensuring that the launch of a nuclear attack is in accordance with US Law.”
What he said is stupid and aids the enemies, both foreign & domestic.
He needs to be removed from command by his immediate superior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.