Trump goes bananas over Dem message to military re: illegal orders

On the topic of unlawful orders it is very easy to think of hypothetical orders that would be unlawful that could come from the White House:

- Orders to commit genocide
- Orders to kill non-combatants or to disregard the distinction between combatants and non-combatants (a combatant is someone who is a member of an opposing nation’s armed forces, a member of a declared hostile force such as the Taliban, or someone who is directly participating in hostilities)
- Use of munitions banned by a treaty the United States has signed and ratified
- Violating the Geneva Conventions by killing or abusing enemy prisoners of war, the sick/wounded, shipwrecked/marooned sailors, etc.
- Orders to violate the posse comitatus act by engaging in domestic law enforcement activity
- Orders to exceed the scope of a congressional authorization for the use of force (think operations in Laos/Cambodia during Vietnam).

Now, I would not expect a junior enlisted Soldier to be making the call on most of these. As the Bulwark article linked previously mentioned, this is primarily a job for officers. Commanding officers down to the battalion level have access to lawyers to advise them on the legality of orders (a company commander even could access the battalion or brigade’s lawyer if needed). They also receive extensive training from Judge Advocates on the laws relevant to their decision-making authority upon taking command.
 
UNCBAdookJD said:
On the topic of unlawful orders it is very easy to think of hypothetical orders that would be unlawful that could come from the White House:

- Orders to commit genocide
- Orders to kill non-combatants or to disregard the distinction between combatants and non-combatants (a combatant is someone who is a member of an opposing nation’s armed forces, a member of a declared hostile force such as the Taliban, or someone who is directly participating in hostilities)
- Use of munitions banned by a treaty the United States has signed and ratified
- Violating the Geneva Conventions by killing or abusing enemy prisoners of war, the sick/wounded, shipwrecked/marooned sailors, etc.
- Orders to violate the posse comitatus act by engaging in domestic law enforcement activity
- Orders to exceed the scope of a congressional authorization for the use of force (think operations in Laos/Cambodia during Vietnam).

Now, I would not expect a junior enlisted Soldier to be making the call on most of these. As the Bulwark article linked previously mentioned, this is primarily a job for officers. Commanding officers down to the battalion level have access to lawyers to advise them on the legality of orders (a company commander even could access the battalion or brigade’s lawyer if needed). They also receive extensive training from Judge Advocates on the laws relevant to their decision-making authority upon taking command.
Click to expand...
How much has the disruptions with some of those legal officers affect access to such guidance?
 
finesse said:
How much has the disruptions with some of those legal officers affect access to such guidance?
Click to expand...
Access isn’t really hampered. The fired 3 stars (positions now downgraded to 2 stars), didn’t really advise individual units, that’s lower level attorneys (divisions and corps generally have an O-6 colonel advising the commander directly along with a team of 10-15 attorneys working for the colonel), a brigade typically has an O-4 major advising the commander, and a battalion can either have their own advisor or access to the brigade’s. The firing of the TJAGs was more symbolic than practical in that it was a message to ignore your attorney if they give you advice that contradicts the orders you’ve received. So it’s not an issue of access, it’s one of messaging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top