Troops Tea Party seems upset

[Fitz]

US troops are the ones that are going to be answerable for their actions if they lose a war.  Either by dying on the battlefield or facing trial in a foreign court or at the mercy of the victor.

They have a right to put their voice into the debate.  And if they do it in uniform, it doesn't bother me at all.

Seeing uniforms opposed to lunacy might encourage Congress to make smarter decisions.

No, they DON'T have that right. When you join the military, you lose some of your rights, especially in regard to criticizing your leadership and your nation. There are ways they can do it without running afoul of the UCMJ. This is not one of them.


Bad decisions kill soldiers.

Public, uniformed opposition (by NCOs, no less) to those decisions kill even more soldiers once the action kicks off. If I criticize my Commander's actions and my troops see it, they will lose confidence, which degrades the ability to perform in combat.

Should a soldier be able to say "no" to an attack on, say, an afghani insurgent safehouse just because he thinks it's a bad idea? After all, the Taliban may capture him and behead him

[HankB]

So far, the president has not violated the constitution with his actions regarding syria...

Quite correct. Verbally rattling the saber against Syria is not unconstitutional. Stupid, yes, but not a violation of the law.

. . . If approved by congress, this military engagement is perfectly legitimate. You don't get to refuse orders because a decision is stupid. You only get to refuse orders of the orders are ILLEGAL.

Congressional approval of military action changes the entire character of the debate, as well as the legality of the action itself. What is setting people off is Obama's expressed intent to unilaterally, on his personal authority ALONE, to initiate military action against a nation that has not attacked the US or its allies. If Congress were to explicitly vote AGAINST military action, a very strong argument could be made that a POTUS decision to proceed anyway, in defiance of Congress, would be an illegal order.

If Congress says "NO" to Obama, rest assured, our military will know it; they're well informed. And they will know about the questionable legality of such an order under those circumstances.

Are military members obligated to obey illegal orders?

[RoadKingLarry]

If Congress says "NO" to Obama, rest assured, our military will know it; they're well informed. And they will know about the questionable legality of such an order under those circumstances.

Interesting dilemma.

Is Obama arrogant enough to defy congess? If he does how would that affect the legality of an order to engage in military action in Syria?

[Fitz]

Quite correct. Verbally rattling the saber against Syria is not unconstitutional. Stupid, yes, but not a violation of the law.

Congressional approval of military action changes the entire character of the debate, as well as the legality of the action itself. What is setting people off is Obama's expressed intent to unilaterally, on his personal authority ALONE, to initiate military action against a nation that has not attacked the US or its allies. If Congress were to explicitly vote AGAINST military action, a very strong argument could be made that a POTUS decision to proceed anyway, in defiance of Congress, would be an illegal order.

If Congress says "NO" to Obama, rest assured, our military will know it; they're well informed. And they will know about the questionable legality of such an order under those circumstances.

Are military members obligated to obey illegal orders?

No, they aren't.

All I'm saying is that, at this point, it's unlawful to refuse to comply, and it's unlawful to voice opposition while in uniform.



If the president goes anyway, after congress says no, then military refusal of orders is perfectly legitimate in my mind. Although I myself will not refuse, because I have this zany sense of obligation to my troops.

[Fitz]

Interesting dilemma.

Is Obama arrogant enough to defy congess? If he does how would that affect the legality of an order to engage in military action in Syria?

THe argument could certainly be made that defiance of congress would make a presidential order to attack illegal.


If it was never brought to congress, then it becomes murky, mostly because of precedent.

[æg151337]

First, any "proxy war" with russia is not going to involve nuke exchanges and sinking fleets. That would be a "war."

Second, nuremburg is really not comparable here. Maybe if we invaded canada for no reason, then rounded up all their <insert ethnic / religious group we want to exterminate here> and murdered them, it would be a valid comparison.

Instead of resorting to laughable hypotheticals, try making an actual rational argument.

Are you suggesting that US Soldiers should be allowed to disobey orders they don't agree with? Versus the current situation where they can only violate illegal orders?

I don't agree with disobeying lawful orders. But then again, i don't believe if it did come down to post war trials if we lose, we may not get the same fairness(mostly fair at least) in trials from the Russians as we gave the Nazis. After all, Russia is notorious for being one of the guilty until proven innocent governments.

[Balog]

Everyone is responsible to their own consciences. If Congress orders the troops to fight for the same terrorists that have been fighting America and beheading infidels then it may  be "legal" but I don't know that it'd be moral. And the legal (as opposed to justice) system would be right in prosecuting those folks who refused. Course sometimes going to prison rather than doing something evil is the right thing.

[Fitz]

I don't agree with disobeying lawful orders. But then again, i don't believe if it did come down to post war trials if we lose, we may not get the same fairness(mostly fair at least) in trials from the Russians as we gave the Nazis. After all, Russia is notorious for being one of the guilty until proven innocent governments.

It's certainly a risk. However, if troops refused to deploy to any country in which the enemy might do horrid things to them upon capture, then we may as well not have a military. It's another one of those risks you accept when you join.

[Fitz]

Everyone is responsible to their own consciences. If Congress orders the troops to fight for the same terrorists that have been fighting America and beheading infidels then it may  be "legal" but I don't know that it'd be moral. And the legal (as opposed to justice) system would be right in prosecuting those folks who refused. Course sometimes going to prison rather than doing something evil is the right thing.

This, I'd tend to agree with, actually. I can certainly agree with this line of thinking. Especially considering the IED that hit my truck came from some extremist group in Syria.

However, I still feel that my obligation to my troops outweighs this feeling. If these guys feel differently, fine. It's still cowardly to hide your face while engaging in such a noble protest, though.

THey want to be "heroes" without any actual negative consequences for their heroics.

[Balog]

Yeah, they agreed to no protests in uniform and there's no good excuse to do so now.

[Fitz]

I hope that, if congress says no and Obama goes anyway, more people than just some Chiefs and sergeants stand up and say "no."

In order for it to have weight and seriously cause America to raise hell, it would have to have some higher ranking folks involved.

[Fitz]

OK, this made me ROFL

[HankB]

I don't agree with disobeying lawful orders. But then again, i don't believe if it did come down to post war trials if we lose, we may not get the same fairness(mostly fair at least) in trials from the Russians as we gave the Nazis. After all, Russia is notorious for being one of the guilty until proven innocent governments.

A full fledged US vs Russia war? We wouldn't lose. We might not win (remember MAD?) but neither side would be in a position to put the other on trial. And as for Russian justice . . . didn't Soviet Russia frequently send people to the gulag on charges that actually read something like "unwarranted exercise of constitutional rights?"

[Tallpine]

A full fledged US vs Russia war? We wouldn't lose. We might not win (remember MAD?) but neither side would be in a position to put the other on trial. And as for Russian justice . . . didn't Soviet Russia frequently send people to the gulag on charges that actually read something like "unwarranted exercise of constitutional rights?"

Everyone will be dead anyway 

[freakazoid]

It's still cowardly to hide your face while engaging in such a noble protest, though.

Cowardly, or smart?

[Fitz]

Cowardly, or smart?

Cowardly. If you want to stand up to the man, but you hide your face to avoid the consequences, you're a coward. Period.

They KNOW they're breaking the rules, yet they do it anyway. But they hide their faces because they don't want to actually deal with the consequences of their actions.

[AZRedhawk44]

Cowardly. If you want to stand up to the man, but you hide your face to avoid the consequences, you're a coward. Period.

They KNOW they're breaking the rules, yet they do it anyway. But they hide their faces because they don't want to actually deal with the consequences of their actions.

And if Sam Adams and John Hancock did it in Boston in the 1760's, is it still cowardly?

[wmenorr67]

Interesting dilemma.

Is Obama arrogant enough to defy congess? If he does how would that affect the legality of an order to engage in military action in Syria?

He has done so on other things...

[JN01]

Intellectually, I understand the necessity to muzzle certain opinions of military members for the sake of good order and discipline, but I can't help but have a knee-jerk reaction of anger when I hear about their liberties being restricted.

No free speech, limits on association and assembly, very restricted RKBA (outside combat zones), increasing infringement on religious practices, high probability that your vote from overseas won't be counted, etc.  It just seems wrong that those who fight for our freedoms have theirs so seriously curtailed.

Yeah, I know, they volunteered, but still.....

Go through the hell of war with its potential life long physical/mental effects (or get killed) and your reward is having less rights than a prison inmate in some respects.

[HankB]

And if Sam Adams and John Hancock did it in Boston in the 1760's, is it still cowardly?

Fitz, were the Sons of Liberty - who carried out the original Boston Tea Party in 1773 - also cowards for disguising themselves as Indians?

[Jamisjockey]

So, let's full on Godwin this thing.

Nuremberg defense.

Assuming Congress says "go to war in Syria."

Now let's play it out to its absolute possible worst scenario.  This turns into a WWIII scale proxy war with Russia, ultimately involving nuke exchanges, loss of cities, sinking of fleets, etc. 

The US loses to Russia.

Russia gets to have its own equivalent of Nuremberg with US soldiers on trial.

"Just following orders of Congress."

Sounds a lot like those Nazis, doesn't it?

Surely you jest? You're comparing possible escalated military action to rounding up millions of..."jooz" as you're so fond of calling them? 
I mean....wtf?
You really can't be that dense?

[Scout26]

I'm saying to suspend the following two components of disbelief:
1. That the US could lose to Russia or some other power
2. That US Soldiers could face trial for something that you feel is just a fact of war, but the victor of that war feels is a war crime.  Intervening in a civil war in a foreign nation, for example.  Whatever.  Maybe a soldier J-walked while attempting to secure a city.  Doesn't matter.  He's on trial for it now.

The thing to focus on here is the defense.

The foreign court isn't going to care if the soldier's justification for participating in the war was "because Congress said so."  They're going to say "where was your moral compass?"

Both of those are a bridge too far.

1.  I sincerely hope that the American People, via the US congress, would say "Whoa!!" to deploying US troops to fight Russians in Syria.  As it stands right now, it doesn't look like the votes are there in the House to approve the Use of Force.
2.  There's a reason we insisted on a SOFA agreement in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.  (We also have them with all our NATO allies, Japan and South Korea among others.)   Even if #1 did come to pass, the Russians aren't the Soviets.  Shooting, hanging, gassing, etc, American Service members would be very bad for business.

AZ, you utter and complete lack of knowledge of the US military, the UCMJ, it's people and leadership is completely underwhelming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

[Fitz]

The comparisons to the founders aren't valid. I'm not quite even sure how to respond. If you can't see the difference , I don't know what to tell you.


Apparently, we want a military where people can ignore orders if those orders make them uncomfortable or might put them in danger
It's impossible to run a military that way.

And yet, this very same board bemoans the degradation of our military's toughness .

[AZRedhawk44]

Surely you jest? You're comparing possible escalated military action to rounding up millions of..."jooz" as you're so fond of calling them? 
I mean....wtf?
You really can't be that dense?

Read the scenario, and accept all of its realities.

US armed forces delivering nuclear payloads to enemy sites designated by the CinC.

The US loses.

The victor holding Nuremberg style trials over US servicemen, from sergeants to generals, involved in everything the victor perceives as a war crime.  Mosques were hit by nukes, it was an affront to Allah, proletariat strike on the bourgeoisie, take your pick.

Yes, it's highly possible that if the US loses a war with some power later on in the cycle of history, that that power will have a vastly different moral compass.

The Germans felt that following orders was a suitable defense for their actions.  History doesn't show that.

And keep in mind, that massive global-scale wars have a tendency to rewrite the rules after the fact.


(Anyways, I just spent two hours rallying in front of Flake and McCain's offices in PHX, protesting any use of force in Syria.  Not that it'll do any good. )

[Fitz]

Well, I Appreciate you taking the time to protest

I plan on spending some time on Capitol Hill

Not in uniform