Should the military always follow the president's orders?

[EvilCat Breath]

What if Hegseth/Trump fired most all the experienced JAGS?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/military-lawyers-fear-firings-will-enable-hegseth-to-bend-law-00206069

In February 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top Judge Advocates General (JAGs) of the Army and Air Force, along with other senior military leadership. Hegseth described the move as necessary to remove "roadblocks" to presidential orders. This unprecedented move drew concern, as the senior legal advisors are typically expected to act as nonpartisan legal counselors, not policy obstacles.

What if your grandma had balls? Would she be your grandpa.

 

[PeterPilot]

Pete & The Zionists are all such idiots.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

What if Hegseth/Trump fired most all the experienced JAGS?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/military-lawyers-fear-firings-will-enable-hegseth-to-bend-law-00206069

In February 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top Judge Advocates General (JAGs) of the Army and Air Force, along with other senior military leadership. Hegseth described the move as necessary to remove "roadblocks" to presidential orders. This unprecedented move drew concern, as the senior legal advisors are typically expected to act as nonpartisan legal counselors, not policy obstacles.

Department of War Secretaries and presidents have the authority to fire senior military leadership as they deem necessary. Congress has no say on who is or isn't to stay.
On my last post, you inserted a funny face. I fail to see any humor in what was entered.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Yes, the military is to be non-political and follow all legal orders.

 

[Care4all]

Department of War Secretaries and presidents have the authority to fire senior military leadership as they deem necessary. Congress has no say on who is or isn't to stay.
On my last post, you inserted a funny face. I fail to see any humor in what was entered.

Your ending to your post was objectionable to me.

Did I say congress had a say in JAGS and/or who can legally fire them?

JAGS are not part of leadership. They rule no one. They are neutral, and only advise on the constitution and what is legal or what is not when it comes to military actions the Generals or Commanders ask advice on.....and those with years of constitutional study and experience are the most valuable. They stay and advise the military regardless of who holds the presidency.

But not to Trump....the constitutional legal expert, is who he fears will get in his way....

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Your ending to your post was objectionable to me.

Did I say congress had a say in JAGS and/or who can legally fire them?

JAGS are not part of leadership. They rule no one. They are neutral, and only advise on the constitution and what is legal or what is not when it comes to military actions the Generals or Commanders ask advice on.....and those with years of constitutional study and experience are the most valuable. They stay and advise the military regardless of who holds the presidency.

But not to Trump....the constitutional legal expert, is who he fears will get in his way....

JAGS are military officers and are subject to dismissal from the military at the discretion of the Secretary of War or the President if they felt there was justification.

 

[kevinthrowe]

JAGS are military officers and are subject to dismissal from the military at the discretion of the Secretary of War or the President if they felt there was justification.

Removing the gatekeepers does not change the laws.
Illegal orders are a violation of laws, federal or international
Soldiers can go to prison.

 

[there4eyeM]

Allegiance is sworn to the Constitution, not any officer or commander. Judgement is, as always, for the individual. Unfortunately, we do not educate individuals sufficiently to understand such responsibility.
As for the rebellion that called itself the Confederacy, any action against it was in accord with defending the Constitution and the Perpetual Union.

 

[jacksonlamb]

JAGS are military officers and are subject to dismissal from the military at the discretion of the Secretary of War or the President if they felt there was justification.

No one is questioning that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

JAGS are military officers and are subject to dismissal from the military at the discretion of the Secretary of War or the President if they felt there was justification.

There is a difference between dismissal from service and reassignment. With Senior Officers they can be removed from their position and will often be given the opportunity to retire.

Take for example Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations. SecDef removed her in February 2025 from her position, but she didn't retire until April of 2025.

High level officer positions are a little different than rank and file officers as Congress has placed limits on when such officers can be dismissed. They did this under their Article 1, Section power over the governance and regularion of land and naval forces.

WW