Pentagon officials discussing how to respond if Trump issues controversial orders

[lafayette]

"The FBI has 6 ways to Sunday to get you". The "DOJ can indict a ham sandwich". I PROMISE you that multiple people are going to face criminal charges. Did you honestly think it wasnt coming after all the lawfare against conservatives for the past 4 years?

Your promises are meaningless. Next.

 

[JohnDB]

The generals will act legally, yes.

Generals might....CIA has not and will not.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Anyone in the military who doesn't want to take orders should be expelled at the very least. A friend of mine in the 1980's signed up for the USMC. He got into an argument with a superior over that very issue and was discharged after serving his country for 8 days.

One has a duty to refuse to act upon an illegal order, did you not know that?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's treason if they don't.

So? since when did magats start opposing treason and insurrection?

 

[struth]

One has a duty to refuse to act upon an illegal order, did you not know that?

What illegal order?

 

[PeanutGallery]

It's not that easy. He can't lock them up, he is not Hitler. This is 2024. Watch.

Well, those generals can be court-martialed under Article 92 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Punishment, if found guilty, can include spending some time at Ft. Leavenworth at the Joint Regional Correctional Facility.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What illegal order?

All illegal orders, go and read about the Nuremberg Charter, were a defense of "just following orders" was not permitted.

e.g.

In March 1968, a U.S. infantry platoon under the command of 2nd Lt. William “Rusty” Calley conducted a raid of a hamlet called My Lai in Quang Ngai Province of South Vietnam. After taking the hamlet, Calley ordered his men to round up the remaining civilians, herd them into a ditch, and gun them down. Somewhere between 350 and 500 civilians were killed on Calley’s instruction.

Calley was court-martialed for his actions and charged with 22 counts of murder. At his trial, he testified that his company commander, Capt. Ernest Medina, had ordered him to kill “every living thing” in My Lai, telling him there were no civilians there, only Viet Cong. When Calley radioed back to Medina that the platoon had rounded up a large number of unarmed civilians, he claimed Medina told him to “waste them.” Essentially, Calley defended gunning down hundreds of civilians by saying he was just following orders from his superiors (It should be noted that Medina denied giving these orders).

But Calley was unable to hide behind this defense. Every military officer swears an oath upon commissioning. That oath is not to obey all orders. It is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It is simply wrong to say Calley had an obligation to follow any order no matter what. His first obligation was to obey the law, and the law prohibits the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians.

Source: Here

 

[struth]

All illegal orders, go and read about the Nuremberg Charter, were a defense of "just following orders" was not permitted.

e.g.



Source: Here

oh you are talking about Nuremberg....

I thought you were talking about something happening today

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Well, those generals can be court-martialed under Article 92 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Punishment, if found guilty, can include spending some time at Ft. Leavenworth at the Joint Regional Correctional Facility.

They won't be found guilty.

 

[lafayette]

I don't think an Article 32 hearing would recommend court-martial on any General if it involves unlawful orders issued by Trump.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why would you think DoD officials who are undermining the president would be "safe"? Id say they are the opposite of safe. Not only can Trump take their job, he can also take their freedom by locking them up.

There aren't very many civilian DoD officials between the President and the actual military people - and I'd bet any such officials are appointed, so Trump will likely have his people in those spots.

Military personnel who refuse a lawful order? They are open for removal and charges.

.

 

[lafayette]

There aren't very many civilian DoD officials between the President and the actual military people - and I'd bet any such official are appointed, so Trump will likely have his people in those spots.

Military personnel who refuse a legal order? They are oren for removal and charges.

.

Article 32 hearings have to be held first.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Article 32 hearings have to be held first.

This does nothing to negate what I said.

 

[lafayette]

This does nothing to negate what I said.

An Article 32 can (and in this case, will) refuse to recommend a court-martial.

 

[Godboy]

Your promises are meaningless. Next.

Its not me who is going to do it. What do you think is more likely, that Trump says to his DOJ pick "lets let bygones be bygones" or "I want you to punish them all"? Is Trump a super sweet guy with a heart of gold, or is he a vindictive egomaniac? I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[lafayette]

The 'targets' will all be pardoned by January 1.

 

[PeanutGallery]

They won't be found guilty.

Considering your track record on being correct, I'll take whatever you predict and go the opposite direction. Remember, this is going to be under the Trump administration.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Considering your track record on being correct, I'll take whatever you predict and go the opposite direction. Remember, this is going to be under the Trump administration.

You said Trump would win in 20, he got his ass kicked, and you being lying ever since.

So, considering your record, I have to giggle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An Article 32 can (and in this case, will) refuse to recommend a court-martial.

In what case?

 

[lafayette]

In what case?

Do you not understand the validity of the comment?