Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the Winter 2010 issue offered one titled, "Breaking Ranks," by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew R. Milburn, who argued that military officers have a moral duty to the Constitution, rather than to the civilian leadership of the United States. Accordingly, officers have a responsibility to openly disobey "immoral" orders, regardless of their legality. Milburn characterized this responsibility as a check on foolish or impractical civilian authority, and as part of a remedy for congressional abdication of foreign policy responsibility.
But the Winter 2010 issue offered one titled, "Breaking Ranks," by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew R. Milburn, who argued that military officers have a moral duty to the Constitution, rather than to the civilian leadership of the United States. Accordingly, officers have a responsibility to openly disobey "immoral" orders, regardless of their legality. Milburn characterized this responsibility as a check on foolish or impractical civilian authority, and as part of a remedy for congressional abdication of foreign policy responsibility.
The Constitution places the military under civilian control. His argument is circular in nature. If a military leader refuses to follow an order by civilian military leadership he should be court marshaled. At that time the legality of the order can be debated and resolved. I don't know a lot of career military officers willing to stick their necks out quite that far.
But the Winter 2010 issue offered one titled, "Breaking Ranks," by Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew R. Milburn, who argued that military officers have a moral duty to the Constitution, rather than to the civilian leadership of the United States. Accordingly, officers have a responsibility to openly disobey "immoral" orders, regardless of their legality. Milburn characterized this responsibility as a check on foolish or impractical civilian authority, and as part of a remedy for congressional abdication of foreign policy responsibility.
This is what you get when the military is politicized, and it has been.
I guess you people don't realize that the military must question ALL orders and make a decision on it's lawfulness. If they are asked to cross the line, they are expected to disobey. It is their duty to do so. They take an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. That is their number 1 duty.
I guess you people don't realize that the military must question ALL orders and make a decision on it's lawfulness. If they are asked to cross the line, they are expected to disobey. It is their duty to do so. They take an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. That is their number 1 duty.
Didn't read the article? It's not about legality of orders, it's about officers and their responsibilities regarding lawful orders with moral/ethical implications.
I guess you people don't realize that the military must question ALL orders and make a decision on it's lawfulness. If they are asked to cross the line, they are expected to disobey. It is their duty to do so. They take an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. That is their number 1 duty.
Which is to obey the executive branch i.e President. Not sure what this guy is getting at.
Also "lawful" orders is the biggest grey area ever created by man, and as someone who was in the military, let me say I would say soldiers rarely think about lawful orders unless its obvious (i.e. go kill some children).
Which is to obey the executive branch i.e President. Not sure what this guy is getting at.
Also "lawful" orders is the biggest grey area ever created by man, and as someone who was in the military, let me say I would say soldiers rarely think about lawful orders unless its obvious (i.e. go kill some children).
The military does not have to obey the President at all costs. Are you even trying to say that if the President oredered the MIlitary to attack American civilians that they would just do it? That is absurd and it doesn't work like that. They definitely have the duty and obligation to defy such orders.
I guess you people don't realize that the military must question ALL orders and make a decision on it's lawfulness. If they are asked to cross the line, they are expected to disobey. It is their duty to do so. They take an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. That is their number 1 duty.
Having spent 15 years in the U.S. Army, I know fully well that soldiers are protected by the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they refuse to obey what they believe to be an unlawful order. However, he'd better be damn sure that the order WAS unlawful or he'll suffer the consequences. Just because his interpretation of what's Constitutional doesn't jibe with the laws Congress has passed isn't good enough.
Additionally, there is NO protection for a soldier who claims some kind of moral imperative or religious reasons for refusing to obey a lawful order.
The military does not have to obey the President at all costs. Are you even trying to say that if the President oredered the MIlitary to attack American civilians that they would just do it? That is absurd and it doesn't work like that. They definitely have the duty and obligation to defy such orders.
No, they do not.
The Constitution gives great latitude to both Congress and the Commander in Chief and that does include the power to take the lives of American citizens during certain identified events, such as an insurrection, rioting or anything which generates a state of martial law (not a complete list). It's been done before, lots of times, and is a legitimate use of Constitutionally delegated powers.
Any soldier who arbitrarily refuses to attack American citizens because he thinks his chain of command doesn't have the authority to order him do so will soon end up at Leavenworth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
