(April 14, 2025 at 1:59 am)Deesse23 Wrote:(April 13, 2025 at 4:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, that’s not the case. AFAIK, military personnel are not required to follow illegal orders, even from the President. In fact, they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.I am shocked, but not surprised at all, that this has to be told to some people.
Boru
On the other side it explains why the US version of democracy is in danger: too few to support it, and apparently too few to understand it. How is someone like this supposed to support a system he does not even understand.
On the plus side, the way you always can claim to just have followed orders after poop has hit the fan.
Welcome to the 1930s re enactments.
Explain to me how ANY direct order from the President to the commanders, if the operations are off U.S. soil are illegal under U.S. law? What law does the President have to abide by? International treaties? The President has the power to decide which treaties to obey and which not to obey. The U.S. considers its Constitution supreme, and that it supersedes all international law.
The Congress has essentially given the President unchecked military power. Theoretically the Congress should approve of a war, but that hasn't happened in my lifetime. They rubber-stamp military action after the fact, but the President has 90 days to whatever he likes. Plus, the President can defy Congress and say "Just try to impeach me - you won't".
There is no such thing as an illegal military order by the President if the activity happens outside of U.S. soil. Prove me wrong, and don't cite international law. That has no effect in the U.S.
When it is 100% legal for the President to order a nuclear strike, how can anything less than that be illegal?
