And by the way, if Mattis refuses in such a hypothetical case, that is unconstitutional. The generals CANNOT refuse the President in such a circumstance. They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused — Agustino
that would be treason
No, he was considering it, but he didn't actually try to do it. If he orders Mattis, and Mattis starts initiating the procedures, and then something goes wrong and they don't do it anymore, then he did order him. — Agustino
And by the way, if Mattis refuses in such a hypothetical case, that is unconstitutional. The generals CANNOT refuse the President in such a circumstance. They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused - that would be treason. — Agustino
Yes it is. The President is the Supreme Commander of the military, and it is TREASON to disobey a military order of the President, punishable by death. No military in this world allows ANY kind of disobedience of orders.We've gone over this. It isn't treason to disobey the President. — Michael
This is from the article PT quoted.Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order
Why?This is wrong. — ProbablyTrue
Yes, they can debate the President and try to convince him otherwise, but if he says this is what we have to do, they cannot disobey.Not strictly true. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42065714 — ProbablyTrue
That's a different matter altogether now.And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer. — ProbablyTrue
And yes, if things got that far, there would be a lot of chaos, and we'd move into a mode of operation that is outside the constitution, with different factions forming, Congress maybe opposing the President, etc. At that point, it doesn't matter what the law is, what matters is who controls the power structures better and whose orders are followed.And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer. — ProbablyTrue
it is TREASON to disobey a military order of the President — Agustino
punishable by death — Agustino
You don't understand how the law works. Disobeying a military order is giving aid to the enemy.No it isn't. Treason is "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere." — Michael
Yes it is. It doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the law to be so. The law provides general principles, it never mentions all particulars of implementation.I already provided you with a link to an article on what it means to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. Disobeying the President isn't one of them. — Michael
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/military-ignores-obamas-order-release-shaker-aamer-guantanamoHowever, Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution provides that the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”. Under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to disobey an order in peacetime is punishable by life in prison. If we believe the Pentagon theory that we are involved in a “Global War on Terror”, then there is an ongoing war, and the punishment for disobeying orders is death.
Under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to disobey an order in peacetime is punishable by life in prison. If we believe the Pentagon theory that we are involved in a “Global War on Terror”, then there is an ongoing war, and the punishment for disobeying orders is death.
Yes, because he actually initiated action that would have blown up the bank, and it is only a fortuitous occurrence which stopped it.Did Billy attempt to blow up the bank? — ProbablyTrue
Ok, so practical matters considered, they cannot disobey the order. Case closed. — Agustino
I can care less how lawyers find a way to classify it in the law. I'm a practical man. It's same with accounting - I don't care how accountants classify things, that's their problem.Case closed? Yes, case closed; it isn't treason. Furthermore, they can disobey. They'll just be punished for it, were Trump willing. — Michael
I can care less how lawyers find a way to classify it in the law. I'm a practical man. It's same with accounting - I don't care how accountants classify things, that's their problem. — Agustino
They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused - that would be treason. — Agustino
It is very relevant. Your good sense is often more important than the law, especially when interpreting the law for a non-lawyer, like I presume both of us are.It is the legal technicalities that matter, not your pragmatism. Whether or not it's "practically" treason or "practically" not obstruction is irrelevant. — Michael
Thanks.It's called "insubordination". Look it up. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.