"Don't Give up the Ship"

[Say it aint so]

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

Here is the thing about adjunct corps in the military (legal, intelligence, medical, meteorological, et cetera). If the commander has a mission, it is never the job of the adjunct corps to say, "You can't do it." It's their job to tell him how he can do it.

Military lawyers don't say, "That's illegal." They tell the commander how to do it it legally.

The same is true for White House lawyers. They don't say "no," they say "how."

That might even involve first "preparing the battlefield" by taking prior steps to adjust the situation to make what the president wants to do legal, or redefining terms or broadening pre-established conditions. Presidents do that all the time.

These may be things lawyers may dispute in court, but the fact that they must be disputed in court means they are not "manifestly illegal."

Even Military lawyers are raising concerns regarding "that's illegal"

Top military lawyer raised legal concerns about boat strikes​

WASHINGTON — The senior military lawyer for the combatant command overseeing lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela disagreed with the Trump administration’s position that the operations are lawful — and his views were sidelined, according to six sources with knowledge of the legal advice.​

​

The lawyer, who serves as the senior judge advocate general, or JAG in military parlance, at U.S. Southern Command in Miami, raised his legal concerns in August before the strikes began in September, according to two senior U.S. officials, two senior congressional aides and two former senior U.S. officials.​

​

His opinion was ultimately overruled by more senior government officials, including officials at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the six sources said. Other JAGs and military lawyers at various levels of seniority weighed in on the boat strikes, as well. It’s unclear what each of their opinions were, but some of the military lawyers, including civilians and those in uniform, also expressed concerns to senior officials in their commands and at the Defense Department about the legality of the strikes, the two senior congressional aides and one of the senior former U.S. officials said.​

​

There's an article above where the DOD purged JAG to get rid of people they seen as obstacles for what ever they wanted to do.

​

White house lawyers? Those are the same folks who justified the legality of waterboarding.

You know far more than I come how the military works regarding this issue. What I am saying, my whole point is given lower ranking soldiers and even JAG lawyers concerns about illegal orders that may come from this White house. A White house that thinks legality is something that just gets in their way, is reason why the video was made. We see judges ruling left and right given their illegal usage of the Guard. We had the head of the DOD at a hearing who refused to answer if the military can arrest citizens. The sentiment is they just can't be trusted to do what's legal. That is my point.

 

[Say it aint so]

Fox’s Trey Gowdy Defends Trump for Suggesting Democrats Who Made Video Should Be Executed: ‘I’m Sure He Meant After a Trial’​

“I’m sure he meant after a trial by your peers, a jury trial by your peers, and after you have been found guilty,” Gowdy said. “I mean, it was a stupid video. Look, you can’t get put to death for making a stupid video, or I’d be dead."

He's about one step behind. The idea of this coming to trial is just about as insane as the outcome.

 

[rjs330]

Reminding U.S. military members of their legal obligations under the U.S. Consitution is not encouraging them "to go rogue."

What was the point of the video? Do you think they really needed to be reminded? Who was this really for? All the military members? The generals?, The enlisted men? This was a political stunt and you know it. They were trying to say Trump has given illegal orders.
Its psy ops.

 

[Say it aint so]

What was the point of the video? Do you think they really needed to be reminded? Who was this really for? All the military members? The generals?, The enlisted men? This was a political stunt and you know it. They were trying to say Trump has given illegal orders.
Its psy ops.

The video is in reaction given events of concern expressed by not only the rank and file military, but commanders, and Military lawyers.

 

[rjs330]

If that were the case and the president is so easy to trigger, can we still say that he is fit for the function?
I expect someone with access to the nuclear codes to be calm, rational and resistent to stress.
Not to react with a hysterical rant about treason, sedition and death penalty. Especially not when the video is about nothing else than a call to follow the constitution.

This is a post that clearly is a example of how the left doesnt understand Trump. They never have.

He has always been like this. He will spout off like that. The truth is he's not going to do anything.

We all know what this video is about. The clear implication is Trump is giving illegal orders. The last bit about "especially now" is the kicker.

Its interesting that everyone on the left is so concerned about Trump saying stuff, but no one is concerned over Congressmen encouraging enlisted people to try and interpret if an order is clearly illegal or not and putting their lives in the line to try and make that decision.

The military knows and instructs this. So whats the point? Its political theater, including what Trump did. Its. ALL pokitical theater.

 

[Say it aint so]

Don't read too much into that.

If they're "seeking counsel," it's because they've been sleeping through their LOAC training.

And you don't know what counsel is telling them.

I don't know what counsel is telling them. Yes, they receive training on responsibility and conduct. What happens when one is ordered to do something that is out of bounds? I think you already mentioned something to the effect, the White house lawyers will cover them. Apparently for some, that doesn't alleviate the concern. Specially in a White house where expressing your concern gets you fired or removed, and replaced with someone simply because they will comply

 

[rjs330]

The video is in reaction given events of concern expressed by not only the rank and file military, but commanders, and Military lawyers.

Concerns? Over what? This was about illegal orders. There hasn't been any. You think there weren't any concerns ftom military members who invaded Iraq?

This was political theater meant to undermine the president and suggest he's giving illegal orders and they have an obligation to disobey them. When in fact he hasn't.

 

[Say it aint so]

Concerns? Over what? This was about illegal orders. There hasn't been any. You think there weren't any concerns ftom military members who invaded Iraq?

This was political theater meant to undermine the president and suggest he's giving illegal orders and they have an obligation to disobey them. When in fact he hasn't.

Go back and read previous posts not just from me given concerns by soldiers, commanders, and military lawyers.

 

[rjs330]

Even Military lawyers are raising concerns regarding "that's illegal"

Top military lawyer raised legal concerns about boat strikes​

WASHINGTON — The senior military lawyer for the combatant command overseeing lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela disagreed with the Trump administration’s position that the operations are lawful — and his views were sidelined, according to six sources with knowledge of the legal advice.​

​

The lawyer, who serves as the senior judge advocate general, or JAG in military parlance, at U.S. Southern Command in Miami, raised his legal concerns in August before the strikes began in September, according to two senior U.S. officials, two senior congressional aides and two former senior U.S. officials.​

​

His opinion was ultimately overruled by more senior government officials, including officials at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the six sources said. Other JAGs and military lawyers at various levels of seniority weighed in on the boat strikes, as well. It’s unclear what each of their opinions were, but some of the military lawyers, including civilians and those in uniform, also expressed concerns to senior officials in their commands and at the Defense Department about the legality of the strikes, the two senior congressional aides and one of the senior former U.S. officials said.​

​

There's an article above where the DOD purged JAG to get rid of people they seen as obstacles for what ever they wanted to do.

​

White house lawyers? Those are the same folks who justified the legality of waterboarding.

You know far more than I come how the military works regarding this issue. What I am saying, my whole point is given lower ranking soldiers and even JAG lawyers concerns about illegal orders that may come from this White house. A White house that thinks legality is something that just gets in their way, is reason why the video was made. We see judges ruling left and right given their illegal usage of the Guard. We had the head of the DOD at a hearing who refused to answer if the military can arrest citizens. The sentiment is they just can't be trusted to do what's legal. That is my point.

So? I would most certainly expect there to be a debate iver something like that. Should we do it? Can we do it? That should happen anytime the military is asked to do something. I bet those debates happened when we invaded Iraq.

Just because questions are raised doesn't mean the actions are ultimately wrong. Have you ever worked for a company where a group of people got together to make a decision? There are all kinds of opinions out there and just because someone questions the proposed action, doesn't mean tge action is wrong or there is anything wrong with the proposal.

You stick a bunch of lawyers together and its going to be a huge mess of disagreements over the legality of a thing. Expressing concerns is what they do.

Expressing concerns doesn't mean something is actually wrong or illegal.

 

[rjs330]

Go back and read previous posts not just from me given concerns by soldiers, commanders, and military lawyers.

See post 129. Expressing concerns means nothing. It doesnt mean anything is actually wrong or illegal. Like I said, there were a lot if concerns over invading Iraq. But it wasn't illegal.

 

[Say it aint so]

So? I would most certainly expect there to be a debate iver something like that. Should we do it? Can we do it? That should happen anytime the military is asked to do something. I bet those debates happened when we invaded Iraq.

Just because questions are raised doesn't mean the actions are ultimately wrong. Have you ever worked for a company where a group of people got together to make a decision? There are all kinds of opinions out there and just because someone questions the proposed action, doesn't mean tge action is wrong or there is anything wrong with the proposal.

You stick a bunch of lawyers together and its going to be a huge mess of disagreements over the legality of a thing. Expressing concerns is what they do.

Expressing concerns doesn't mean something is actually wrong or illegal.

Well there you go. "So" And yes, given concern for those "debates" where those concerned in this admin are usually fired or replaced with anyone who will agree with them, all levels of the military are expressing concern regarding illegalities. You may not see the issue, but apparently they do.

 

[RDKirk]

Concerns? Over what? This was about illegal orders. There hasn't been any. You think there weren't any concerns ftom military members who invaded Iraq?

This was political theater meant to undermine the president and suggest he's giving illegal orders and they have an obligation to disobey them. When in fact he hasn't.

A whole flock of general officers retired over the invasion of Iraq...and nobody outside the military noticed. The Army chief of staff got fired pushing back against the invasion of Iraq...and nobody outside the military noticed.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know what counsel is telling them. Yes, they receive training on responsibility and conduct. What happens when one is ordered to do something that is out of bounds? I think you already mentioned something to the effect, the White house lawyers will cover them. Apparently for some, that doesn't alleviate the concern. Specially in a White house where expressing your concern gets you fired or removed, and replaced with someone simply because they will comply

What does "out of bounds" mean? That's a meaningless term without real actionability.

The troops are taught not to obey illegal orders, and they are given a specific meaning for that: An illegal order is an order to break a law, and they should be able to name the law that it breaks.

Anything more esoteric, philosophical, or political than "breaks a law/does not break a law" is out of the realm of the common soldier to interpret. All that soldier can do is get court-martialed, and he will lose because the military court is not going to rule against the president...that's called "mutiny."

 

[Say it aint so]

What does "out of bounds" mean? That's a meaningless term without real actionability.

The troops are taught not to obey illegal orders, and they are given a specific meaning for that: An illegal order is an order to break a law, and they should be able to name the law that it breaks.

Anything more esoteric, philosophical, or political than "breaks a law/does not break a law" is out of the realm of the common soldier to interpret. All that soldier can do is get court-martialed, and he will lose because the military court is not going to rule against the president...that's called "mutiny."

There are events going on in the seas that are out of bounds. Judges are ruling actions regarding the Guard are out of bounds. One could so yes, there is no need for soldiers, commanders, and JAG who have expressed concern. But never the less, it's there. It's why the video was made. If this were any other president the response would be reassurance. But with this guy you get calls for treason and the death penalty.

 

[RDKirk]

There are events going on in the seas that are out of bounds. Judges are ruling actions regarding the Guard are out of bounds.

We'll have to see what the Supreme Court says. But historically, the Supreme Court has said such matters are not a judicial issue.

One could so yes, there is no need for soldiers, commanders, and JAG who have expressed concern. But never the less, it's there. It's why the video was made. If this were any other president the response would be reassurance. But with this guy you get calls for treason and the death penalty.

That stuff is "in the clouds," as we say in the military. We're dealing with what is "down in the weeds."

 

[Say it aint so]

We'll have to see what the Supreme Court says. But historically, the Supreme Court has said such matters are not a judicial issue.

That stuff is "in the clouds," as we say in the military. We're dealing with what is "down in the weeds."

Lots of elements can effect weeds. One of them is the action that takes place in the clouds.

Be well.

 

[Yarddog]

Politicians should be very careful when calling for the death of other politicians.

If they cant do that, it calls into question their suitability for office.

Right wingers would have been screaming if Democrats would have said what Trump said about the Washington Post reporter, towards Charlie Kirk.

 

[wing2000]

They were trying to say Trump has given illegal orders.

You, and the right wing media are trying to spin it as such. They said no such thing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

From back in June, when the National Guard was first being deployed to Los Angeles:

Ever since President Trump seized control of the California National Guard and deployed thousands of troops to Los Angeles, calls from distressed service members and their families have been pouring in to the GI Rights Hotline.

Some National Guard troops and their loved ones have called to say they were agonizing over the legality of the deployment, which is being litigated in federal court, according to Steve Woolford, a resource counselor for the hotline, which provides confidential counseling for service members.

Certainly some troops are thinking about these questions already.

 

[Fervent]

From back in June, when the National Guard was first being deployed to Los Angeles:

Ever since President Trump seized control of the California National Guard and deployed thousands of troops to Los Angeles, calls from distressed service members and their families have been pouring in to the GI Rights Hotline.

Some National Guard troops and their loved ones have called to say they were agonizing over the legality of the deployment, which is being litigated in federal court, according to Steve Woolford, a resource counselor for the hotline, which provides confidential counseling for service members.

Certainly some troops are thinking about these questions already.

Which makes the video pretty ill-advised, since it seems to trivialize refusal to act on orders rather than making it clear just how high the threshold is for such disobedience to be the proper course of action.