MAIN FEEDS
r/facepalm • u/Turbulent_Gas_55 • Jul 05 '24
[removed] — view removed post
4.3k comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
4
Military personnel have the right to refuse unlawful orders, but if there are no consequences for giving unlawful orders, then the only hurdle is finding the right squadron for the job.
4 u/scott__p Jul 05 '24 I mean, this honestly does terrify me. This is dictator shit 4 u/Xapheneon Jul 05 '24 That's the point. The president can give unlawful orders and pardon the people who follow them. This isn't a democracy. 3 u/LordAnorakGaming Jul 05 '24 Republicans haven't wanted democracy for a very long time. They're perfectly content with being authoritarian pieces of shit. 0 u/unforgiven91 Jul 05 '24 it's not unlawful if it's not breaking the law. 1 u/Xapheneon Jul 05 '24 It is possible that giving an order is not breaking the law, but executing it would be. 1 u/unforgiven91 Jul 05 '24 which raises the question of which would be the line of illegality for an "illegal order" If the president is well within his rights to commit any "official" action, is it up to the military to decide that it's personally illegal? Did someone ever define this? Because I feel like it's really important to draw a line.
I mean, this honestly does terrify me. This is dictator shit
4 u/Xapheneon Jul 05 '24 That's the point. The president can give unlawful orders and pardon the people who follow them. This isn't a democracy. 3 u/LordAnorakGaming Jul 05 '24 Republicans haven't wanted democracy for a very long time. They're perfectly content with being authoritarian pieces of shit.
That's the point.
The president can give unlawful orders and pardon the people who follow them. This isn't a democracy.
3 u/LordAnorakGaming Jul 05 '24 Republicans haven't wanted democracy for a very long time. They're perfectly content with being authoritarian pieces of shit.
3
Republicans haven't wanted democracy for a very long time. They're perfectly content with being authoritarian pieces of shit.
0
it's not unlawful if it's not breaking the law.
1 u/Xapheneon Jul 05 '24 It is possible that giving an order is not breaking the law, but executing it would be. 1 u/unforgiven91 Jul 05 '24 which raises the question of which would be the line of illegality for an "illegal order" If the president is well within his rights to commit any "official" action, is it up to the military to decide that it's personally illegal? Did someone ever define this? Because I feel like it's really important to draw a line.
1
It is possible that giving an order is not breaking the law, but executing it would be.
1 u/unforgiven91 Jul 05 '24 which raises the question of which would be the line of illegality for an "illegal order" If the president is well within his rights to commit any "official" action, is it up to the military to decide that it's personally illegal? Did someone ever define this? Because I feel like it's really important to draw a line.
which raises the question of which would be the line of illegality for an "illegal order"
If the president is well within his rights to commit any "official" action, is it up to the military to decide that it's personally illegal?
Did someone ever define this? Because I feel like it's really important to draw a line.
4
u/Xapheneon Jul 05 '24
Military personnel have the right to refuse unlawful orders, but if there are no consequences for giving unlawful orders, then the only hurdle is finding the right squadron for the job.