Why do US service members obey orders in an illegal war led by Trump?

[Anonymous]

The war itself is illegal and therefore orders given in the war are also illegal, especially the furtherance of the illegal war and they are given by Trump who himself is a criminal. I don't understand why they are obeyed.

[OneViewpoint]

Kindly explain why this war was technically illegal under US law and not simply stupid for the first 60 days. If the war powers act allows it what makes it illegal?

Explain what is illegal about it under international law? Because the UN wasn't consulted? The UN is an all but irrelevant impotent anachronism. Going to the UN for a public debate would only advertise your intentions. That's why no one does it. The whole case for legal vs illegal under international law is completely ambiguous and subjective based on belief about imminent threat.

There was no clear cut case for the US military to not comply with the orders of a mentally ill moron trying to avoid pedophile charges. I'm betting the Pentagon wanted nothing to do with this idiot fiasco.

Sad but true. This is a Constitutional and legislative problem not a military command problem. There need to be more clearcut and unavoidable checks on executive power in our laws. Sadly our Supremely Corrupted Court doesn't agree with checks on executive power while their guy is in office.

[Asker]

Is it legal because it requires Congressional approval which has not been given. The 60 days will elapse without that approval as well.

[Asker]

Sorry that should say illegal. Not legal. More fun with the AI.

[OneViewpoint]

So you're aware that Congress gave the executive 60 days to act BEFORE he has to put the question before the legislature via the War Powers Act. And we are still in that first 60 day window. We are not yet even at the 30 day point. So it is NOT illegal... YET. You just admitted you are aware of that fact. You simply don't like the fact that an imbecile got us into another asinine regime change war in the middle east. I'm with you on that.

The thought behind the War Powers Act was that you cannot tie the hands of an Executive in an emergency. So they allowed him to act but he has a limited time to take his case before Congress and obtain consent. Which is sort of hilarious because after you've bombarded some poor bastards for 60 days, you are at war whether Congress agrees or not. "Ooops, my bad" is not gonna make the other guy forget the whole mess.

The bottom line is we live in an imperfect world where shit happens and it's impossible to get consensus in real time in a deliberative body like Congress. Especially one as toxically divided as ours at the moment.

So what would be your solution? Wait for the debate to take place and possibly put yourself in jeopardy in the age of nuclear ballistic missiles that can strike in 20 minutes (there was no real threat in this case). Or launch an attack and get permission while you prosecute the war. Congress chose to allow the latter. I don't think anyone ever believed we'd be looking at a mentally ill career criminal with the IQ of a toddler in charge of the US military.

[Asker]

I think only one side has nuclear ballistic missiles, and hopefully they won't be used. I don't really want to debate the legality of this craziness.

[OneViewpoint]

Well how about admitting that you lied?

And nuclear missiles are the reason for the war powers act. It was passed in 1973 I believe. At the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

The fact that Iran does not have ICBM’s does nothing to alter the fact that the war powers act exists as law right now. And tRump has not yet exceeded his powers. He did something incredibly stupid. Again. We’ll see if it becomes criminal in about 35 days.

[Asker]

I have lied about nothing. I don't appreciate being accused of it.

[Asker]

At least arguably, the war appears to be illegal under U. S. law:

No congressional authorization
There has been no declaration of war or specific authorization for this conflict

Not clearly self-defense
Critics argue there was no proven “imminent attack” justifying unilateral action

Too large in scope
Ongoing, large-scale operations may exceed what presidents can do alone

Some experts say this “pushes the limits” of presidential authority

Explicit claims of illegality
Some constitutional scholars and organizations say the war is “unconstitutional” and unlawful.

[Asker]

None of this matters in the least because Trump has already proven that he can do anything he wants to anybody he wants at any time, and there will be no consequences for him whatsoever.

[OneViewpoint]

I don’t give crap if you don’t like being called out for a lie. You lied.

Everything you keep throwing out as facts are opinions from political talking heads and your own emotional responses.

tRump has another month to sell this fiasco to a partisan Congress.

[Asker]

Characterize what I say as a lie; that is an insult, and it is not okay because it implies that I am doing it deliberately. If you characterize it as inaccurate, on the other hand, that's okay, and if that's true, then it's true.

[Asker]

Being wrong is not the same thing as being lying; however, if you want to play the insult game with me, I'll just block your ass.

[OneViewpoint]

Thank you anon boy with accountability problems.

[goaded]

The War Powers Act "provides that the president can send the U. S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces"."

There was no imminent threat, no national emergency, no attack, was there?

[OneViewpoint]

@goaded ,

That is the gotcha in the language congress used. “Imminent Threat” was left as a subjective judgement call. There is no thermometer or pressure gauge for imminent threat. It’s the Iraq weapons of mass destruction play all over again. We never fixed it after Bush II.

It gives our fascists the wiggle room they need. Did they sincerely believe there was an imminent threat? Hell no. Will they ever admit that? Hell no. Can you prove they are lying. Hell no.

Like i said, this is a legislative failure. The war powers act is not weasel proof.

[Asker]

You would probably do well to watch the name calling. You make good points frequently, and I enjoy reading what you write; however, calling people names for no particularly good reason is likely to just get you blocked and otherwise disregarded. I'm asking you nicely to stop doing it, at least to me.

[Asker]

It is also a failure in a sense of language, or a failure to anticipate what someone might do with that language. In other words, yes, as you said, a legislative failure. I wonder if it was left there on purpose, or if it was left there because nobody imagined a fascist would take advantage of it. What do you think?

[OneViewpoint]

I think the War Powers Act was passed in 1973. A different era which ironically was characterized by war (Vietnam) and the forerunners of MAGA (race hating Dixiecrats) who are now in the Republican Party after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960's. But the War Powers Act Was a response to the nuclear Cold War with the Soviet Union.

[OneViewpoint]

At that time we were more naive as a nation. We were scared to death of the "Commies". No one imagined Fascist traitors from within trying to overthrow the us government. No one ever envisioned a career criminal in the White House. It not like smart attorneys didn't exist in 1973 who could build secure language. They didn't consider a tRump possible. Same reason they didn't make provisions for space aliens.

Fast forward to the 2nd gulf war and it's aftermath. I think we were still naive even though a lot of us were outraged by Darth Cheney's lies about weapons of mass destruction. That was the canary in the coal mine. We looked at the dead bird and went back into the coal mines with our picks and shovels. We are basically idiots.

And then along comes a brain damaged career criminal and pedophile looking to stay out of prison and he finds a poorly written piece of legislation he can take advantage of. So he did.

Note to US citizens... a Fascist criminal can get elected president. A cult can get elected to the House and Senate. The Supreme Court can be bought. We need to fireproof ALL of our laws regarding elections and separation of powers.

[OneViewpoint]

But back to the meat of your question. Which is actually what set me off. And that is the accusation that the US military is blindly obeying the orders of an insane moronic criminal because they are bloodthirsty morons without a spine. It's a lot more complex that that and a little less cut and dried than the talking heads would have you believe. Do your homework next time and I won't insult you.

[goaded]

Because, less it's a direct order to do something that is blatantly illegal, like "shoot that civilian", it's your superior's job to decide. It's up to generals to refuse orders from a president, for example. I don't know whose job it should have been to refuse to bomb shipwrecked sailors, but that was lower down the pecking order, probably the one pulling the trigger.

Maybe some people did, but if so they probably have no future career in the military.

[Asker]

I think the captain of the ship certainly was obligated to refuse to allow his ship to do what it did. I think the one pulling the trigger was obligated to refuse to pull the trigger. I think people all along the line were obligated to make refusals, but none of them did because the consequences for doing so are so dire and so life-altering in a very negative way that everybody is afraid to do it.

[Asker]

It also doesn't get talked about much that even disobeying an illegal order carries the risk of your fellow soldiers killing you for it.

[Anonymous]

because US service members would have to also obey Obama, Biden and any Democrat POTUS.

US service members don't get to pick and choose who to obey when they've signed up

[Asker]

Your response doesn't even make any sense. There is only one POTUS at a time. Luckily. I don't think the political party of the POTUS makes a hell of a lot of difference either. So what exactly is your point with this ridiculous response?

[Opinion Owner]

my point is US service members must obey orders or be discharged

[Asker]

It is a lot worse than just being discharged it is usually a dishonorable discharge and sometimes a jail or prison sentence and a loss in rank

[Opinion Owner]

the military is founded on law and order and swearing an oath to serve

we can't just have US service members doing whatever they want based on their feelings and expect a unified fighting force

[Asker]

Us service numbers are also legally required to refuse to follow illegal orders and yet they do because the retaliation for not following any orders either legal or illegal is too severe to risk.

[Opinion Owner]

it's illegal to disobey your chain of command

[Asker]

No, it is also illegal to obey an illegal order. Try looking this up in the UCMJj instead of just talking out of your ass.

[Opinion Owner]

legality is determined by your chain of command, not you

you don't get to pick and choose what you think is legal or not

[Asker]

Actually, according to the uniform code of the military Justice you were in fact supposed to be doing that. In practice. I don't think service members do it because they don't dare to but they are supposed to.

[Anonymous]

They're young kids, most of them, and those who have families are afraid of the consequences like a dishonorable discharge.

[beefcakebradybatson]

They don't know, for the most part, they can disobey illegal military commands.

[Asker]

I think that they do know actually and they are just fearful of the consequences of refusing in order legal or illegal. I can't blame them for worrying about this because it's a very dire consequence.

[strateguy632]

If it really was illegal they wouldn't obey.

[Asker]

Soldiers often get illegal orders that they obey in a way because the consequences of not obeying are so severe. I direct you to the My Lai incident of Vietnam as an example.

[strateguy632]

No way! In the west we have a category called "consci-encious" to protect soldiers if they can explain a moral reason.

[Asker]

Of course they would. The consequences of not obeying are too severe.

[Asker]

You don't know the first thing about this, but I do, and the category that you refer to is called a conscientious objector, and those people are punished very severely by the military. It does not protect them from anything.

[Asker]

In the 1960s, there were people called conscientious objectors who were attempting to not be drafted into the military that was fighting what they and most of the country considered to be yet another illegal war manufactured by the Republicans called Vietnam. They were mostly unsuccessful, and many of them were sent to federal prison for five years. They were later pardoned, of course, by a Democratic president. Republicans only pardon real criminals later on.

[Asker]

You know killing people who are floating helpless in the water strikes me as being pretty damn blatantly illegal, and yet you would probably have an argument about why it wasn't. Go right ahead and expound on that.

[Anonymous]

Because refusal is an executable offence

[strateguy632]

It is not! What country are you in?