Commander in Chief

[emmett]

Can a man who has never served in the military technically be qualified to be it's Commander in Chief?


Yes....I know, it has been done before but are they really qualified?


And...before anyone uses Lincoln as an example, he fumbled what should have been a two month excursion into four long years by picking the wrong generals so don;t even go there.

[jimnyc]

Can a man who has never served in the military technically be qualified to be it's Commander in Chief?

Yes....I know, it has been done before but are they really qualified?

And...before anyone uses Lincoln as an example, he fumbled what should have been a two month excursion into four long years by picking the wrong generals so don;t even go there.

Technically, yes, as it happens already as you stated. Want my opinion? I'm going to give it to you anyway! I don't think anyone, regardless of party, should be making military decisions unless they have earned that right. I don't think being elected to the highest office should give someone that right. Leave the politics in Washington and allow the Generals and field officers to do what they do best on the ground. How this would work between the military and Washington is beyond me, I don't proclaim to have the answer, but maybe some sort of liaison committee between those in charge within the military and Congress? If I were a troop, I would feel more confident being led by a man who has served and earned his right to lead.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

It seems to me that the only way to avoid this would be to never allow someone to run in any of the primary races unless they had military service on their resume. Which may not be a bad idea....but, Emmett, a new law would have to be passed to make that happen :poke: Whats more, such a law would never pass presidential veto until we have a president in office who actually has military experience on his resume.

But, as to your point....I agree that military experience should be a prerequisite for Commander in Chief. I've always felt that way.

[crin63]

As someone who has never served our country in a military capacity yet have had undying respect for those who have all of my life, I may have a different point of view. It may very well be the wrong view, however I think it is correct.

As I see it the President has those who should be the top military advisers that our country has to offer surrounding him. He is or should be getting and relying on their input for his decisions. A well reasoned man who listens to advisers need not necessarily have had every experience in life to make what amounts to life and death decisions. All any man can do is gather what information is available to him, whether its from personal experience or from trusted advisers, assess that information and make a well reasoned decision.

[Kathianne]

A place to start:


Presidents with no military experience

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Grover Cleveland
William Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Bill Clinton


Presidents during wartime

George Washington: war with Native Americans in Ohio
Thomas Jefferson: Tripolitan War, 1800-1805, against the Barbary pirates
James Madison - War of 1812, 1812-1814, against the British
James Monroe - First Seminole War, 1817-1818
Andrew Jackson - Black Hawk War, 1832
Martin Van Buren - Aroostook War, 1839; Second Seminole War - ended 1842
William Henry Harrison - Second Seminole War - ended 1842
John Tyler - Second Seminole War - ended 1842
James Polk - Mexican War
James Buchanan - beginning of the Civil War
Abraham Lincoln - Civil War, 1861-1865
William McKinley - Spanish-American War, 1898; Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1900
Woodrow Wilson - WWI, 1914-1918
Warren Harding - formally concluded WWI
Franklin Roosevelt - WWII, 1941-1945
Harry Truman - conclusion of WWII, Korean War - 1950-1953
Dwight Eisenhower - conclusion of Korean War
John Kennedy - Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1961; beginning of Vietnam War
Lyndon Johnson - Vietnam War, Dominican Republic, 1965
Richard Nixon - Vietnam War
Ronald Reagan - Grenada Invasion, 1983
George Bush - Invasion of Panama, 1989-1990; Persian Gulf War, 1990-1991
George W. Bush - War against the Taliban, Iraq, 2001 to present.

Site for history geeks, whoever they may be. ;)
http://www.heptune.com/preslist.html#Military

What do you think?

[CSM]

IMO, military experience should not preclude one from holding the office of President, neither should it be a requirement.

One of the built in safety mechanisms of our government is the civilian oversight of our military and that is not only a good thing but a necessary one.

Having said that, I beleive it behooves a sitting president to listen to his military advisors (the joint chiefs, SoD, etc.) on matters pertaining to the military and military actions impacting foreign policy. Those same military advisors should keep their damn nose out of politics while serving too!

[maineman]

IMO, military experience should not preclude one from holding the office of President, neither should it be a requirement.

One of the built in safety mechanisms of our government is the civilian oversight of our military and that is not only a good thing but a necessary one.

Having said that, I beleive it behooves a sitting president to listen to his military advisors (the joint chiefs, SoD, etc.) on matters pertaining to the military and military actions impacting foreign policy. Those same military advisors should keep their damn nose out of politics while serving too!

I agree completely, except I think that the SecDef is inextricably involved in politics... the guys in uniform should certainly keep their involvment professional and removed from politics, for sure.

[CSM]

I agree completely, except I think that the SecDef is inextricably involved in politics... the guys in uniform should certainly keep their involvment professional and removed from politics, for sure.

The Sec Def is real bridge between the military and the politicians but even then he should not be endorsing any particular party platform. I am not saying that the current Sec Def is doing that ...

[maineman]

The Sec Def is real bridge between the military and the politicians but even then he should not be endorsing any particular party platform. I am not saying that the current Sec Def is doing that ...

I think that the SecDef should endorse the policies of the president and should resign if he cannot.... same goes for all commissioned and non-commissioned officers.

[Jeff]

As someone who has never served our country in a military capacity yet have had undying respect for those who have all of my life, I may have a different point of view. It may very well be the wrong view, however I think it is correct.

As I see it the President has those who should be the top military advisers that our country has to offer surrounding him. He is or should be getting and relying on their input for his decisions. A well reasoned man who listens to advisers need not necessarily have had every experience in life to make what amounts to life and death decisions. All any man can do is gather what information is available to him, whether its from personal experience or from trusted advisers, assess that information and make a well reasoned decision.

I agree with this 100% crin, IF the president is smart enough to take the advice of the generals, Seems there was a argument months back that Obama said he would listen but doesn't have to follow there suggestions, at this point I say no way should a guy that has no military experience and for that matter limited foreign policy experience have the right to give orders

Just my Opinion

[CSM]

I think that the SecDef should endorse the policies of the president and should resign if he cannot.... same goes for all commissioned and non-commissioned officers.

Hmmm...we will have to agree to disagree on that, especially the part regarding commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Our military would be totally useless if a good percentage of the military experience resigned every four to eight years. I would rather those personnel remain apolitical. Also, as you well know, military personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. They do not swear loyalty to the CiC nor should they. I view that as another one of those safety mechanisms that helps prevent a military overthrow of our government.

[maineman]

Hmmm...we will have to agree to disagree on that, especially the part regarding commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Our military would be totally useless if a good percentage of the military experience resigned every four to eight years. I would rather those personnel remain apolitical. Also, as you well know, military personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. They do not swear loyalty to the CiC nor should they. I view that as another one of those safety mechanisms that helps prevent a military overthrow of our government.

One can be apolitical and still show enthusiasm when carrying out the policies and direction of the CinC. If officers cannot bring themselves to obey the orders given to them and to "own them" when leading their troops, they should resign, IMHO.

[CSM]

One can be apolitical and still show enthusiasm when carrying out the policies and direction of the CinC. If officers cannot bring themselves to obey the orders given to them and to "own them" when leading their troops, they should resign, IMHO.

Enforcing and supporting military policy is one thing and obviously applies. Asking the military to support or enforce policies that have nothing to do with the military or military operations is another. I do not believe that military personnel should endorse a president's policy regarding cancer research (for example) or campaign funding reform except as it impacts military operations, standards and regulations.

Again, as you well know, the military oath requires personnel to obey the LAWFUL orders of their superiors. Obeying orders and "showing enthusiasm" in the execution of ones duties is very different from "endorsing the policies of the president" especially if the policies in question are not militarily related.

[maineman]

Enforcing and supporting military policy is one thing and obviously applies. Asking the military to support or enforce policies that have nothing to do with the military or military operations is another. I do not believe that military personnel should endorse a president's policy regarding cancer research (for example) or campaign funding reform except as it impacts military operations, standards and regulations.

Again, as you well know, the military oath requires personnel to obey the LAWFUL orders of their superiors. Obeying orders and "showing enthusiasm" in the execution of ones duties is very different from "endorsing the policies of the president" especially if the policies in question are not militarily related.

Endorsing the president's military policy is all I was suggesting. Military officers should not be involved in non-military political issues.

[emmett]

OK then....let us slightly alter the question. CSM made an excellent point. All members of the military take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, if a military officer recieves an order that in his opinion violates that document, is he justified in refusing to obey it? IMHO....yes!

This would apply to military use of troops to quell a politcal uprising. The Constitution makes it clear that there can be domestic enemies. Who determines the proper qualification of what a "Domestic" enemy is? Is a person who rejects the policies of a sitting majority of party a domestic enemy?

Can technically a military man turn his weapon on a single US citizen? Is he not taxed with making a decision of whether that person is or not a domestic enemy?

Were the students at Kent State domestic enemies?

Were blacks who marched for civil rights domestic enemies?

Would Tea Party protestors be domestic enemies if they refused to disburse?

Wouldn't all persons who took part in a revolt to prevent Socialist ideology from becoming commonplace in our country be domestic enemies?

[maineman]

a military officer should obey all lawful orders or resign, imo

[emmett]

a military officer should obey all lawful orders or resign, imo

So IYHO, it was lawful to shoot the four liberal college students dead then I suppose? A yes or no answer will do.


(Get warmed up crickets, I you're on in a minute)

[CSM]

Endorsing the president's military policy is all I was suggesting. Military officers should not be involved in non-military political issues.

Thus my original stance.

[emmett]

So IYHO, it was lawful to shoot the four liberal college students dead then I suppose? A yes or no answer will do.


(Get warmed up crickets, I you're on in a minute)



Ut-oh.....looks like El Debator had pinned him already this morning. (Emmett yawns and decides whether he wants another cup of coffee, while listening to the pleasant sound of crickets beginning to chirp in the background)

[emmett]

Maineman has left the boardroom! Touche', take that you! You have just been quick jabbed by the fast intellectual mind of El Debator.

NEWS RELEASE: It is being reported this morning that El Debator, the alter ego of common man Libertarian and DP poster "Emmett the hippy Conservative" has scored a knockout in the first round of Maineman in a debate post concering the lawful use of power by an unqualified president. "The crickets are performing a rendition of Beetoven's third," he was quoted as saying. "I didn;t mean to hit him that hard, really I didn;t, he just stuck his head right out there and I took the shot."


I know most expect long drawn out explantions of my points generally and I admit I am a long winded sort at times, however I just wanted this "gentleman" to understand what conjecture and rhetorical luring was all about since he uses these tactics so regularly in his practices here. He opened the post, read it and immediately signed out after having set the tone for the question himself. He has demanded one word yes or no answers from RSR on no less than 100 occurances yet when a very well supported question of venue was placed to him in a post where he himself had dictated a derailment of sorts, he was forced to surrender and ran.

ROFLMAO


(El Debator flexes himself and looks into the reflection of the living room window)

[Jeff]

[QUOTE=emmett;384075]Maineman has left the boardroom! Touche', take that you! You have just been quick jabbed by the fast intellectual mind of El Debator.

NEWS RELEASE: It is being reported this morning that El Debator, the alter ego of common man Libertarian and DP poster "Emmett the hippy Conservative" has scored a knockout in the first round of Maineman in a debate post concering the lawful use of power by an unqualified president. "The crickets are performing a rendition of Beetoven's third," he was quoted as saying. "I didn;t mean to hit him that hard, really I didn;t, he just stuck his head right out there and I took the shot."


I know most expect long drawn out explantions of my points generally and I admit I am a long winded sort at times, however I just wanted this "gentleman" to understand what conjecture and rhetorical luring was all about since he uses these tactics so regularly in his practices here. He opened the post, read it and immediately signed out after having set the tone for the question himself. He has demanded one word yes or no answers from RSR on no less than 100 occurances yet when a very well supported question of venue was placed to him in a post where he himself had dictated a derailment of sorts, he was forced to surrender and ran.

ROFLMAO


(El Debator flexes himself and looks into the reflection of the living room window)

LMAO, MM gets slammed
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to emmett again

[CSM]

OK then....let us slightly alter the question. CSM made an excellent point. All members of the military take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, if a military officer recieves an order that in his opinion violates that document, is he justified in refusing to obey it? IMHO....yes!

This would apply to military use of troops to quell a politcal uprising. The Constitution makes it clear that there can be domestic enemies. Who determines the proper qualification of what a "Domestic" enemy is? Is a person who rejects the policies of a sitting majority of party a domestic enemy?

Can technically a military man turn his weapon on a single US citizen? Is he not taxed with making a decision of whether that person is or not a domestic enemy?

Were the students at Kent State domestic enemies?

Were blacks who marched for civil rights domestic enemies?

Would Tea Party protestors be domestic enemies if they refused to disburse?

Wouldn't all persons who took part in a revolt to prevent Socialist ideology from becoming commonplace in our country be domestic enemies?

I'm no lawyer, so this is pure speculation on my part. It seems to me that to declare a person to be a domestic enemy subject to law enforcement apprehension (or other action) they would have to have been actually been indicted for some criminal act. One would presume that such a criminal act would be already declared illegal and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Regarding Kent State students, I would point out that the incident in question was perpatrated by the National Guard. The National Guard is under the command of individual state governors unless federalized. In my opinion, using the National Guard for law enforcement is a dangerous thing to do unless the rules of engagement are clrealy and unambiguously publicized. The use of Guardsmen for humanitarian efforts is another story.

As for the other two instances, based upon my initial speculation regarding criminal activity, I would have to guess that civil rights marchers and tea party protestors are a civilian law enforcement issue.

Further, I know that there are laws that prohibit the use of federal troops against our civilian population, I can only imagine that any president declaring martial law in effect for the entire nation (unless warranted by what I can only imagine would be earth ending circumstances) would find that not only would the military be an issue but so would every law enforcement organization and paramilitary and pseudo-militia group in the country.

[emmett]

CSM...you point about State Governor control of Guard troops is a good one...


However.....


they are federal troops and if they were going to be used in an unlawful manner, such as they most certainly were in the case of Kent State it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to see a violation of any citizens rights under the Constitution are not violated or restricted.

I agree use of national Guard troops is very dangerous when the intention is to be used to fire a weapon on a US citizen....especially an "unarmed" one.

My point in the thread of course was obvious when I asked the question I did. The party in power having the resources of the US military to enforce or impose itself on the citizenry. Just that act itself in my opinion would make it by proxy a domestic enemy as long as the citizenry was merely rebelling to political overseeing.

[CSM]

CSM...you point about State Governor control of Guard troops is a good one...


However.....


they are federal troops and if they were going to be used in an unlawful manner, such as they most certainly were in the case of Kent State it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to see a violation of any citizens rights under the Constitution are not violated or restricted.

Nope. They are state militia under command of the state governor UNLESS federalized. This is a subtle but key point. While your point about the responsibility of the federal government gauranteeing citizen's rights is valid.

I agree use of national Guard troops is very dangerous when the intention is to be used to fire a weapon on a US citizen....especially an "unarmed" one.

My point in the thread of course was obvious when I asked the question I did. The party in power having the resources of the US military to enforce or impose itself on the citizenry. Just that act itself in my opinion would make it by proxy a domestic enemy as long as the citizenry was merely rebelling to political overseeing.

One other subtle but key point is that the US military is comprised of largely US citizens. These individuals have families and other close relationships living within the very population any government leader would try to intimidate/dominate. The very nature of the resource (the Army, for example) would assure its self destruction (through dissension in the ranks if nothing else) should such a misuse of the military be attempted. Believe it or not, and despite what some may tell you, the individuals who serve in our military are NOT mindless robots!

If the day comes when the US military is ordered enmasse to subjugate the civilian population of this country, I firmly believe the US military will no longer be able to function in any capacity because most of its members will no longer be members.

[emmett]

Excellent points!


By the way....do you realize your wife is on here trying to convince Joe Steel that Conservatives are smarter than Liberals? Geeeeez! Where did you find that chick? LOL.

[CSM]

Excellent points!


By the way....do you realize your wife is on here trying to convince Joe Steel that Conservatives are smarter than Liberals? Geeeeez! Where did you find that chick? LOL.

My wife? Dang, don't tell me that Joe Steel can speak to the dead!

[maineman]

So IYHO, it was lawful to shoot the four liberal college students dead then I suppose? A yes or no answer will do.


(Get warmed up crickets, I you're on in a minute)

sorry ...just got back on after visiting my hospice patient...

regarding Kent State, using the national guard to quell a civil disturbance is certainly within the scope of authority for a state's governor. And while certainly ill advised... I believe that the order apparently given by the unit's officer in charge to fire upon the protesters who were themselves perpetrating offensive actions, was technically "legal".

does that answer your question?

[emmett]

Excellent points!


By the way....do you realize your wife is on here trying to convince Joe Steel that Conservatives are smarter than Liberals? Geeeeez! Where did you find that chick? LOL.

Not your wife, mis posted.

[emmett]

sorry ...just got back on after visiting my hospice patient...

regarding Kent State, using the national guard to quell a civil disturbance is certainly within the scope of authority for a state's governor. And while certainly ill advised... I believe that the order apparently given by the unit's officer in charge to fire upon the protesters who were themselves perpetrating offensive actions, was technically "legal".

does that answer your question?


Yes Virgil, perfectly. However I don't believe any of the students had M-16 rifles.....or any other weaponry aimed at Guardsman. It was consemned as a national disgrace and it most certainly was.

My point was in relation to your statement about "lawful orders" and whether an officer who refuses to carry one out should resign.

Should Lt. Calley have refused the order from Capt. Medina? Was there ever an order given since Medina denied it?

More directly my point, NO, I would never turn my weapon on or order the firing on, ANY American citizen at any time unless weapons were being used by the person. Even then there are questions actually.

It is the duty of any enlisted / officer in the US military to protect and defend any American citizen at all times. That includes their right to gather and protest. The gray becomes the zone in which disturbance develops, such as Kent State or many of the other examples we could sit here and think of. However at NO time should a member of the US military follow an order to shoot his weapon at an unarmed American citizen. Furthermore I can assure you Nixon knew exactly what was going on in Kent, Ohio on that day.

[crin63]

Yes Virgil, perfectly. However I don't believe any of the students had M-16 rifles.....or any other weaponry aimed at Guardsman. It was consemned as a national disgrace and it most certainly was.

My point was in relation to your statement about "lawful orders" and whether an officer who refuses to carry one out should resign.

Should Lt. Calley have refused the order from Capt. Medina? Was there ever an order given since Medina denied it?

More directly my point, NO, I would never turn my weapon on or order the firing on, ANY American citizen at any time unless weapons were being used by the person. Even then there are questions actually.

It is the duty of any enlisted / officer in the US military to protect and defend any American citizen at all times. That includes their right to gather and protest. The gray becomes the zone in which disturbance develops, such as Kent State or many of the other examples we could sit here and think of. However at NO time should a member of the US military follow an order to shoot his weapon at an unarmed American citizen. Furthermore I can assure you Nixon knew exactly what was going on in Kent, Ohio on that day.

I mentioned this in another post but it bears repeating here.

I was training a guy as a mechanic and some kind of survey had recently come out where servicemen were asked if they would ever fire upon an American citizen if given the order. This guy had just gotten out of the 101st if I remember correctly so I asked him his opinion. He said that yes he would fire upon an American citizen if the order was given to do so. His rationale which I completely and totally disagree with was that if he was given the order to fire on a citizen then that the person was or had to be a domestic enemy or the order would not have been given. He said he swore to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. I have to say, I was more than a little shocked at that response.

[emmett]

I mentioned this in another post but it bears repeating here.

I was training a guy as a mechanic and some kind of survey had recently come out where servicemen were asked if they would ever fire upon an American citizen if given the order. This guy had just gotten out of the 101st if I remember correctly so I asked him his opinion. He said that yes he would fire upon an American citizen if the order was given to do so. His rationale which I completely and totally disagree with was that if he was given the order to fire on a citizen then that the person was or had to be a domestic enemy or the order would not have been given. He said he swore to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. I have to say, I was more than a little shocked at that response.

Again I repeat this is a gray area I realize.

I know a young man who I asked that question to lately also. He is also an airborne youngster of age 19. His answer was the opposite. He said he would never fire on an American citizen who was unarmed.

[maineman]

Yes Virgil, perfectly. However I don't believe any of the students had M-16 rifles.....or any other weaponry aimed at Guardsman. It was consemned as a national disgrace and it most certainly was.

and I would agree that it was a national disgrace, but I am not sure that the order, in and of itself, was "illegal".


My point was in relation to your statement about "lawful orders" and whether an officer who refuses to carry one out should resign.
Should Lt. Calley have refused the order from Capt. Medina? Was there ever an order given since Medina denied it?

IMO, Calley should have refused to carry out Medina's order, if one was given and then, at a disciplinary hearing, he could make his case that, in his opinion, the order was not lawful...


More directly my point, NO, I would never turn my weapon on or order the firing on, ANY American citizen at any time unless weapons were being used by the person. Even then there are questions actually.

a gang setting fire to government buildings? who refused to stop when confronted by an armed force? I dunno.... I think that I might order a detachment to fire on such a group, and if I did, I think that the order would be lawful


It is the duty of any enlisted / officer in the US military to protect and defend any American citizen at all times. That includes their right to gather and protest. The gray becomes the zone in which disturbance develops, such as Kent State or many of the other examples we could sit here and think of. However at NO time should a member of the US military follow an order to shoot his weapon at an unarmed American citizen. Furthermore I can assure you Nixon knew exactly what was going on in Kent, Ohio on that day.

Like I said, men "armed" with zippos lighting piles of stuff that would cause damage or injury, I would disagree. At Kent State, the students had begun hurling objects at the guardsmen... tear gas cannisters and rocks... those certainly aren't as lethal or effective as rifles, but they are not totally harmless either... and I doubt that Nixon knew that the Ohio National Guard was planning on opening fire on Kent State students.

[emmett]

and I doubt that Nixon knew that the Ohio National Guard was planning on opening fire on Kent State students.


Oh....I dunno.


a gang setting fire to government buildings? who refused to stop when confronted by an armed force? I dunno.... I think that I might order a detachment to fire on such a group, and if I did, I think that the order would be lawful


I would not. That is the clear difference in our opinion here. The guardsman were highly trained fighters, they could have quelled the situation without killing unarmed students. There had to be another way.

I can't help but mention it but you are sounding like some you have critisized here. Where is all that anti-violence rhetoric now? I'm just saying.....



IMO, Calley should have refused to carry out Medina's order, if one was given and then, at a disciplinary hearing, he could make his case that, in his opinion, the order was not lawful...

This means it is OK then to disobey an "unlawful" order. I made that point a few posts back and you said an officer who does not carry out an order should resign. That would have been difficult for Calley...would it not?

I know that circumstances are different in each situation and it is easy to play armchair quarterback in these circumstances but I hold my policy, those buildings were nowhere near as important as a human life......especially a basic child. I would have ordered the men to engage in hand to hand and stop the uprising using shields and batons. It HAS been done before, police did it all the time.


and I would agree that it was a national disgrace, but I am not sure that the order, in and of itself, was "illegal".



To me it was very illegal...as well as immoral and a crime against humanity and American citizens.



And for the record....I sound like a crying ass liberal tonight huh? LOL

[maineman]

I would not. That is the clear difference in our opinion here. The guardsman were highly trained fighters, they could have quelled the situation without killing unarmed students. There had to be another way.

highly trained guardsmen? LOL Clearly, you did not spend any time anywhere near a national guard drill weekend during the 60's and 70's.


I can't help but mention it but you are sounding like some you have critisized here. Where is all that anti-violence rhetoric now? I'm just saying.....

I have NEVER been anti-violence. I am a retired career military officer. I LOVE the military and I fully support the use of force when it is appropriate. Was it appropriate at Kent State? of course not, but I am not sure it was unlawful.


This means it is OK then to disobey an "unlawful" order. I made that point a few posts back and you said an officer who does not carry out an order should resign. That would have been difficult for Calley...would it not?

No one in uniform is ever required to carry out an unlawful order, and I NEVER said otherwise. I said that it an officer could not carry out the orders of the president and the orders of the officers appointed over him - and the assumption is that those orders are lawful - then the officer should immediately resign his commission. If Calley was given an order to massacre defenseless, passive civilians who posed no threat to him or his unit, such an order would have been unlawful and he should have refused to obey it and the subsequent disciplinary hearing would have determined the unlawful nature of the order and the rectitude of his disobeying it.


I know that circumstances are different in each situation and it is easy to play armchair quarterback in these circumstances but I hold my policy, those buildings were nowhere near as important as a human life......especially a basic child. I would have ordered the men to engage in hand to hand and stop the uprising using shields and batons. It HAS been done before, police did it all the time.

and you would have been a better officer than the national guard officer who ordered his men to fire.


To me it was very illegal...as well as immoral and a crime against humanity and American citizens.

immoral no doubt, but illegal? I dunno.... what law was broken?


And for the record....I sound like a crying ass liberal tonight huh? LOL

not at all. you sound emotionally invested in this issue. conservatives are allowed to be emotional.

[Missileman]

No one in uniform is ever required to carry out an unlawful order, and I NEVER said otherwise. I said that it an officer could not carry out the orders of the president and the orders of the officers appointed over him - and the assumption is that those orders are lawful - then the officer should immediately resign his commission. If Calley was given an order to massacre defenseless, passive civilians who posed no threat to him or his unit, such an order would have been unlawful and he should have refused to obey it and the subsequent disciplinary hearing would have determined the unlawful nature of the order and the rectitude of his disobeying it.



Assumed lawful by whom?...the order giver? The order receiver is the one who has to make a determination of whether an order is lawful. If, after the fact, it turns out the order receiver's determination was incorrect, there might be consequences.

[Kathianne]

Disobeying legal orders:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90_2.htm

Illegal orders:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Figure that out in a few minutes, imagine the mind-frame of an 18-20 year old.

[maineman]

Assumed lawful by whom?...the order giver? The order receiver is the one who has to make a determination of whether an order is lawful. If, after the fact, it turns out the order receiver's determination was incorrect, there might be consequences.

of course.

the military person who receives an order must first make the individual determination as to whether the order is lawful or not. If it IS lawful, the oath taken upon induction requires them to follow that order.

As I said, if a military officer cannot, in good conscience, follow the lawful orders of his chain of command, he should resign immediately.

[red states rule]

Yes Virgil, perfectly. However I don't believe any of the students had M-16 rifles.....or any other weaponry aimed at Guardsman. It was consemned as a national disgrace and it most certainly was.

My point was in relation to your statement about "lawful orders" and whether an officer who refuses to carry one out should resign.

Should Lt. Calley have refused the order from Capt. Medina? Was there ever an order given since Medina denied it?

More directly my point, NO, I would never turn my weapon on or order the firing on, ANY American citizen at any time unless weapons were being used by the person. Even then there are questions actually.

It is the duty of any enlisted / officer in the US military to protect and defend any American citizen at all times. That includes their right to gather and protest. The gray becomes the zone in which disturbance develops, such as Kent State or many of the other examples we could sit here and think of. However at NO time should a member of the US military follow an order to shoot his weapon at an unarmed American citizen. Furthermore I can assure you Nixon knew exactly what was going on in Kent, Ohio on that day.

Game, set, and match Emmett. Virgil is running around in circles, ducking and dodging all the incoming artillery

IF Virgil was ever in the service, and was an officer (I can't see such an arrogrant asshole like him being in a position of authority) he knows damn well shooting unarmed CIVILIANS in NOT a lawful order and should never be obeyed

Another trait of any military officer is being able to lead, inspire, and earn the respect of those who serve under him. In Virgil's case, he could not lead a horse to water

[CSM]

Bottom line is that the individual obeys or disobeys an order at their own peril. It is quite clear that any order directing a criminal act is unlawful and in some case that is pretty easy to determine (if a captain orders his men to rob a bank it is not too difficult to tell that captain to piss off). The cases where it is not so clear (an order to shoot at civilians who are engaged in violence though unarmed) is that tough situation where we place soldiers in a moral quagmire.

Each situation is different and soooo circumstantial it is almost impossible to answer hypothetical questions like those posted above.

One more thing: The National Guard troops at Kent State were very different soldiers from the soldiers we have in the National Guard currrently. The Guardsmen of the 60's and early 70's had a less than stellar reputation and they earned it. The Guadsmen of today are very different and are some of the best this country has to offer...they have a great reputation and they earned that too!

[maineman]

Bottom line is that the individual obeys or disobeys an order at their own peril. It is quite clear that any order directing a criminal act is unlawful and in some case that is pretty easy to determine (if a captain orders his men to rob a bank it is not too difficult to tell that captain to piss off). The cases where it is not so clear (an order to shoot at civilians who are engaged in violence though unarmed) is that tough situation where we place soldiers in a moral quagmire.

Each situation is different and soooo circumstantial it is almost impossible to answer hypothetical questions like those posted above.

One more thing: The National Guard troops at Kent State were very different soldiers from the soldiers we have in the National Guard currrently. The Guardsmen of the 60's and early 70's had a less than stellar reputation and they earned it. The Guadsmen of today are very different and are some of the best this country has to offer...they have a great reputation and they earned that too!

I concur on every single point in this post. well said.

[Psychoblues]

Obviously emmie wouldn't know a CIC if he studied for a thousand years!!!!!!!! Some get it and some don't!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[emmett]

Obviously emmie wouldn't know a CIC if he studied for a thousand years!!!!!!!! Some get it and some don't!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Great point PB, now there is some real sunstinative dialogue.

[Psychoblues]

Makes mucho sense to me, cowgirl.




Great point PB, now there is some real sunstinative dialogue.

How's that "sunstinative" thing working out for you?

Get a freaking grip on yourself, emmie. You are an uneducated and incapable and rather stupid SOB but you really can't help any of that. But,,,,,,,,the facts remain.

Do you always squeal like that when you've been stuck??!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues