What happens when the CinC issues an unlawful order?

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.”

I now need additional clarification.

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.

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?

"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.

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.