Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: An Army Bro Is Suing Barack Obama For Going To War With ISIS

  1. #21
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    In any case, dude's a fucking barracks lawyer.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,267
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Yup.

    He knew what the official interpretation of the law was. And, unless you're a supreme court justice in the applicable jurisdiction, it's not your place to act out of accordance with the official interpretation. You don't have that right. Obama may violate YOUR interpretation, but if he violated the official interpretation, then SCOTUS steps in.
    But are we not ordered to question illegal/immoral orders in the UCMJ?

  3. #23
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    But are we not ordered to question illegal/immoral orders in the UCMJ?
    Oaths of enlistment/commissioning.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  4. #24
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    So His interpretation of the law is wrong and should get him canned for doing what HE sees as right under his oath. BUT obama's massive stretch of the rules to interpret it the way he did, is ok??
    He can interpret the law all he wants, disobeying orders that the DoD have determined are legal but that he does not would get him in trouble. I would note that the plaintiff in the case has not refused to deploy (I think I read that he is currently deployed), but he is questioning the legality of the counter ISIL effort. I think he is wrong, I respect his conviction and willingness to make himself the lightning rod for the effort. I would bet he has likely already decided on a career outside of being in uniform.


    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Oaths of enlistment/commissioning.
    The oaths are different for enlisted personnel and commissioned officers.

    Enlisted service members swear to support and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the President Constitution.

    Officers swear allegiance only to the Constitution, but not specifically to obey orders (of the President or otherwise -- but this does not make us exempt from obeying legal orders) – some see this as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #25
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    The oaths are different for enlisted personnel and commissioned officers.

    Enlisted service members swear to support and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the President Constitution.

    Officers swear allegiance only to the Constitution, but not specifically to obey orders (of the President or otherwise -- but this does not make us exempt from obeying legal orders) – some see this as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions.
    I know they are different, but first and foremost is the pledge of upholding the constitution over any one person in elected office.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  6. #26
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    I know they are different, but first and foremost is the pledge of upholding the constitution over any one person in elected office.
    True ... but a semantic point in the enlisted oath is that the verbiage is not "support and defend the constitution or obey the orders of the President" ... it is AND. Now, if the two are not in agreement, what to do? Obey the constitution because it is first in the oath? Obey the President?

    A big part of established precedent and historically speaking ... it is that very, VERY rare that individual members of the military won in court when they disobeyed orders based on their personal interpretation of law absent of a pre established understanding that the law is unconstitutional. It is one thing to refuse to commit a violation of the law of war as ordered by your platoon commander; it is entirely different to decide that the President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Act which requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war by the United States. While congress has not declared war formally, Congress has both authorized counter ISIS efforts (via the NDAA) and funded the actions (via the FY16 Appropriations Bill).

    I am not a lawyer, but the way the War Powers Act reads, I think the President is good on this one.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #27
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    True ... but a semantic point in the enlisted oath is that the verbiage is not "support and defend the constitution or obey the orders of the President" ... it is AND. Now, if the two are not in agreement, what to do? Obey the constitution because it is first in the oath? Obey the President?
    Constitution. POTUS says, "Kill those people because 'reasons' on American soil", yes, its my duty and obligation to deny those orders even if I am killed for my beliefs.

    A big part of established precedent and historically speaking ... it is that very, VERY rare that individual members of the military won in court when they disobeyed orders based on their personal interpretation of law absent of a pre established understanding that the law is unconstitutional. It is one thing to refuse to commit a violation of the law of war as ordered by your platoon commander; it is entirely different to decide that the President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers Act which requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war by the United States. While congress has not declared war formally, Congress has both authorized counter ISIS efforts (via the NDAA) and funded the actions (via the FY16 Appropriations Bill).

    I am not a lawyer, but the way the War Powers Act reads, I think the President is good on this one.
    We are not, and should not be subjugated to the whims of one man. We as military service members need to know the constitution so that way if a POTUS decides to enact marshal law and expel congress, we know that we should say "NO!!!" I am sure any military member in any state that became ruled by a dictator was saying "that could never happen here".
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  8. #28
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Constitution. POTUS says, "Kill those people because 'reasons' on American soil", yes, its my duty and obligation to deny those orders even if I am killed for my beliefs.
    Under the Posse Comitatus Act, that is correct ... however ... the FY2007 NDAA authorized the use of US Forces and force on US soil for the restoration of order in national emergency, disaster epidemic etc. Also the FY12 NDAA authorized the use of US Forces for counter terrorism efforts beyond the scope of law enforcement. So, there are exceptions, that are legal. It would be situationally dependent.


    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    We are not, and should not be subjugated to the whims of one man. We as military service members need to know the constitution so that way if a POTUS decides to enact marshal law and expel congress, we know that we should say "NO!!!" I am sure any military member in any state that became ruled by a dictator was saying "that could never happen here".
    Concur. But, we should not oppose orders because we don't like the President. Like the President or not, the one we have now was legally elected and holds the authority of the Commander and Chief.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  9. #29
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Concur. But, we should not oppose orders because we don't like the President. Like the President or not, the one we have now was legally elected and holds the authority of the Commander and Chief.
    I didn't say it was cause of the man, but the orders they may give.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  10. #30
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    I didn't say it was cause of the man, but the orders they may give.
    Gotcha ... I didn't necessarily mean you specifically.

    Interesting story about lawful / unlawful orders: Gen Peter Pace tells a good story of how in Vietnam when one of his men was killed by a sniper & he (in a fit of anger and frustration) ordered an artillery strike on the village where the sniper fired from. His platoon sergeant instantly conveyed that the order was (morally / ethically) wrong; the artillery strike was called off and when the Marines swept the village they found a lot of women and children that would have been killed. That platoon sergeant was not "just a platoon sergeant."
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •