Free Republic
Browse · Search
VetsCoR
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What happens when the CinC issues an unlawful order?
self | 032811 | sarasmom

Posted on 03/28/2011 7:18:32 PM PDT by sarasmom

When there exists a situation where the specific directives of the UCMJ, and an elected CINCs orders are in direct conflict, which directive order is primary?


TOPICS: VetsCoR
KEYWORDS: moralabsolutes; ucmj
The POTUS is the CINC. Even the POTUS is subject to the UCMJ.
1 posted on 03/28/2011 7:18:34 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
Rule 23 applies.

You don't want to know.

2 posted on 03/28/2011 7:26:24 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("...crush the bourgeoisie... between the millstones of taxation and inflation." --Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
Depends on Congress and the courts. If it's obama, nothing, which order were you referring to?
3 posted on 03/28/2011 7:27:38 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

It’s where the senior brass need good intel. It’s also where the intel folks need reliable checks and balances.

Even some 50 years after JFK, people still don’t have all the answers surrounding the Bay of Pigs and a litany of other Kennedy related gray areas.

Read Seven Days in May, the book, not the movie. It touches on the issue.

IMHO, we’ve branched out beyond that sort of thinking. The first order of business is to identify the enemies of the Constitution molding events. IMHO, it goes way past Obama.


4 posted on 03/28/2011 7:27:48 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

The rules have been changed — the CinC is black this time. To deny him certain privileges that crackers don’t get would be considered racist.


5 posted on 03/28/2011 7:29:11 PM PDT by 353FMG (The M1911 is mightier than the sword.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

In theory, EVERY servicemember has an obligation NOT to follow an illegal order. Remember My Lai? THAT was an illegal order, however, it was still carried out and 1LT Calley took the heat for it. The soldiers who followed this illegal order were not convicted, however they were just as guilty of murder as he was.

In practice, however, political correctness and senior officers looking to make their next promotion usually let it slide. And thus, the system utterly breaks down.


6 posted on 03/28/2011 7:29:36 PM PDT by NWFLConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

I thought the Nuremberg Trials established that once and for all. A service member does not have to obey an unlawful order.


7 posted on 03/28/2011 7:30:59 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

The soldiers follow it.

They ALWAYS do.


8 posted on 03/28/2011 7:31:20 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Impeach Obama & try him for treason / Homosexuals reject diversity / Unions finally caught for theft)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine

Nuremberg appealed to a higher authority. Unfortunately for those who arrogantly believe they are the highest authority, (and aren’t God) conflict is likely unavoidable. So long as we are obedient to God through faith in Christ, no adversary will prevail over His rule of us.


9 posted on 03/28/2011 7:35:38 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
The constitution, ratified by the states is above the co-equal president, congress, and supreme court.

As the Israelites were to follow God's anointed ruler (David) over the more popular usurper Absalom - even though he raised a larger faction in his support - so we are to continue to support God's appointed ruler over us.

It does not matter one whit whether the legitimate ruler is a Prophet (like Moses), a judge (like Gideon), a king (like David), or a paper document like our constitution.

10 posted on 03/28/2011 7:41:00 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

No they do not.


11 posted on 03/28/2011 7:42:58 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

Please cite an example.


12 posted on 03/28/2011 7:44:01 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Impeach Obama & try him for treason / Homosexuals reject diversity / Unions finally caught for theft)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
Where do you get that idea?
Not so, even “soldiers”. Marines, Sailors, Airmen, Soldiers etc. swear an oath to the Constitution, not a person.

Watch this Marine public affairs officer discuss an illegal order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI&feature=related

NOT ALWAYS, will they do what you stated. Many patriots still serve today.

13 posted on 03/28/2011 7:48:04 PM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Here’s your example.

Where do you get that idea?
Not so, even “soldiers”. Marines, Sailors, Airmen, Soldiers etc. swear an oath to the Constitution, not a person.
Watch this Marine public affairs officer discuss an illegal order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI&feature=related

NOT ALWAYS, will they do what you stated. Many patriots still serve today.


14 posted on 03/28/2011 7:50:45 PM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Wesley Clark comes to mind for following unlawful orders from a president or the president’s wife re the Waco TX massacre of American citizens by the US military. There has yet to be any accountability by any government official. Hell, Clark thought he could become president after that. He ought to have been put before a firing squad along with Clinton, Reno and Lon Horiuchi of Ruby Ridge fame as well as the senators who shammed and covered for all of them.


15 posted on 03/28/2011 8:43:39 PM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

The President is not covered by the UCMJ.


16 posted on 03/28/2011 8:47:29 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
"The POTUS is the CINC. Even the POTUS is subject to the UCMJ. "

No, the UCMJ does not apply to the civilian leadership of the US Armed Forces. It is exclusively applicable to our uniformed service personal (and some US contractors under very specific conditions).

17 posted on 03/28/2011 8:58:30 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
"When there exists a situation where the specific directives of the UCMJ, and an elected CINCs orders are in direct conflict, which directive order is primary?"

The UCMJ is statutory law, 10 USC. The president is president, not King. Therefor he cannot issue orders that contradict the UCMJ, or any other statutory law.

18 posted on 03/28/2011 9:00:12 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCause

(I report , you deside !)
The oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 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. So help me God.


19 posted on 03/28/2011 10:18:05 PM PDT by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

What higher authority? The victors put on a show trial of the losers and executed them. It was a.valuable propaganda exercise but I don’t think the Bible was used as the law.


20 posted on 03/29/2011 7:11:13 AM PDT by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Thank you for the clarification.


21 posted on 03/29/2011 4:50:10 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“The UCMJ is statutory law, 10 USC. The president is president, not King. Therefor he cannot issue orders that contradict the UCMJ, or any other statutory law.”

I now need additional clarification.


22 posted on 03/29/2011 4:55:58 PM PDT by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

I find an intellectual study of jurisprudence at the Nuremberg Trials to manifest much greater depth than a show trial of losers put on by winners as a propaganda tool.

IMHO, the opinion that Nuremberg was a propaganda tool of victors over losers is exactly the fodder which encouraged those who committed atrocities to rationalize their decisions, actions, and behavior.

Those with wherewithal are able to discern a higher moral authority.


23 posted on 03/29/2011 8:14:00 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Never mess with a Marine's coffee if you want to live?
24 posted on 03/30/2011 10:36:04 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

The trials set the stage for an endless series of international tribunals ever since, from the Spanish court’s prosecution of Pinocet, the the ICC trying Milosevic, to the calls for Bush to put on trial for “war crimes” in Iraq.

What law was used in Nueremberg?


25 posted on 03/30/2011 12:09:26 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
"I now need additional clarification."

Sure. The President, and his civilian DoD subordinates are not subject to criminal prosecution under the UCMJ, unlike all uniformed service personnel and, in very rare cases, some civilian DoD contractors (like the Blackwater contractors).

BUT, that does not mean that the President, or his subordinates, may legally issue orders to uniformed service personal that would require the uniformed service members to violate the UCMJ.

The UCMJ is not a collection of regulations (administrative law), but is rather codified laws, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. There are certain administrative regulation that the President (or his applicable designees) may alter by Executive Order. But, the President MAY NOT alter the UCMJ by Executive Order because those are codified laws.

For instance, Don't Ask Don't Tell was actually part of the UCMJ. And, because it was statutory law, Obama had to wait for action by Congress before he could undo DADT.

26 posted on 04/06/2011 10:01:05 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Hardly

Soldiers swear to uphold the Constitution


27 posted on 04/16/2011 1:50:51 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
VetsCoR
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson