RiverDog wrote:Here's an article that might give you some comfort:
Speaking publicly on the issue last November, Gen. John Hyten, top US nuclear commander, said he would push back against an order from Trump for a nuclear strike if it were “illegal.”
“I provide advice to the President,” Hyten said. “He’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m gonna say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”
While the President retains that authority, Hyten publicly emphasized that the US military always has the obligation to follow only legal orders, including those entailing the launch of nuclear weapons.
During that hearing, retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, who served as the commander of US Strategic Command under President Barack Obama, explained that there are layers of safeguards within the system designed to ensure any order is legal and proportionally appropriate.
CNN military analyst John Kirby explained that military judge advocates and general counsel are active participants in the decision-making process at virtually every level, from the tactical to the strategic.https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics ... index.htmlThen there's this:
Can the military refuse an order from the commander-in-chief to occupy American streets and use force, if necessary, against American citizens?
Writing in the academic website The Conversation, former Naval officers Marcus Hedahl and Bradley Jay Strawser say the answer is yes. The oath sworn by all members of the military is to defend and support the Constitution, not necessarily the commander-in-chief, say Hedahl and Strawser, who now teach philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School.
"We often discuss with our classes the fact that military members are not duty-bound to follow illegal orders," they wrote. "In fact, they are expected, and sometimes legally required, to refuse to obey them."
It's informally called a "duty to disobey," and the Uniform Military Code of Justice speaks to it in Articles 90 and 92, which both deal with obligations to follow orders. While the Code is more concerned about the need to obey orders, it specifies that orders must be “lawful." If they're not, presumably, that leaves room for refusal.
Analyzing these sections, Retired Air Force First Sergeant Rod Powers explains that orders are always assumed to be lawful, except when they are “contrary to the constitution" or “laws of the United States," or are “patently illegal, … such as one that directs the commission of a crime."https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/ ... reets.htmlIMO Trump has about the same chance of the military overturning the election as he did with a conservative SCOTUS, 1/3 of which he appointed.
Yeah the SCOTUS, losses in 60 lawsuits, certification of votes on the 15th, McConnel conceding along with many republicans, Bill Barr downloading etc, republican governors and election officials pushing back on him , really stopped Trump's sedition attempt didn't it? And all these reassuring articles and statements are great but we've already blown through norms by miles and the man is heading pell mell for god knows what.
If you saw his speech in georgia last night"I'm gonna fight like hell, I'm never giving up the presidency".
I dont see the military overturning the election. I fear trump will possibly TRY to command the military to go into the streets if he's able to create significant chaos
.Why did the Defense secs including arch conservatives warmongers Cheney and Rumsfeld write that warning about military involvement if the men who know best aren't extremely concerned?
To remind the current military brass of our american traditions with our military?
Directed at the new sycophant Sec of Defense who has espoused conspiracy theories?
The Assistant secretary, another trump sycophant?
He's a former staffer for R congressman Devin Nunes of california who behaved as a russian asset during the congressional Russia investigation.
Im positive Nunes will protest tomorrow. His dude is assistant sec of defense.
RD there has been a complete shakeup in the Sec of defense staff, all loyalists since the firing of Mark Esper AFTER LOSING THE ELECTION. I'm not sure they have the spine to stand up to Trump or even the inclination.
Esper said of his firing"who comes next and God help us" This is the top military officer in the US armed forces speaking of his commander in chief. I've never seen so many military brass including republicans go on the record with their concerns about this lunatic.
We aren't talking about nuclear war. I feared Trump would lose a nuclear pearl harbor, still might.There's time
Don't want to be right but if I am were all an ash and nice knowing you all.
Im talking about troops in the streets which could set off a green on green conflict.
And again rules are rules and Im sure its illegal to serve in the military as a white supremacist but there are plenty of them.Remember Nichols and MCveigh? I've seen so much utterly irrational hair on fire acts by Trump and sycophants since he lost this election I will feel somewhat better when he's gone, not at all before.