United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

Reader mode
ShadowArxxy said:
Trump did it plenty. He took *flak* for doing so, but my standpoint is, "I'm criticizing the President's position because I think it's a bad decision, not because I think the executive branch doesn't belong to the President."
Click to expand...

Trump wasn't even able to undo an executive order. State Department officials openly bragged in the papers about playing shell games to keep him from knowing the actual number of troops in Syria.
 
Doomsought said:
That is mutiny, they should have been executed.
Click to expand...

To do that you need a reliable triggerman. Trump could barely even fire people.

The big lesson of Trump, IMO is that it is not enough to just vote a guy in, even one at the very top, because actual power is held in the federal bureaucracy and institutional inertia. We need to build parallel structures capable of exerting actual power or have organizations filled with reliable people that can be used to fill slots after a purge of said bureaucracy, and the ability to purge it. (But this is off topic, so more on that elsewhere maybe, later).
 
Abhishekm said:
Honestly asking when was the last time anyone was actually executed for mutiny in America?
Click to expand...
WWI, I believe? In 1917 or 1918 Houston locals and an all-black infantry unit stationed there conflicted because racism and ignoring orders, some members of the unit rioted and shot police, and 'mutiny' was one of the charges included at the court martial.
Might be something more recent--famous VIetnam instances of soldiers refusing to go on patrol and the like got popularly reported on, but I don't know if those anecdotal stuff ever got 'mutiny' attached to them as opposed to other charges?
 
Well, because there is a diffrecne from disobeying orders and a mutiny.
US are allowed to deny orders if they deem them unjust, immoral, or illegal.
 
LindyAF said:
That rule in practice is always just going to be about who's side power is on, tbh.
Click to expand...
King Arts said:
But that’s a hollow bullshit excuse because unless someone higher up than whoever gave you the order agrees it was a wrongful order then you will be charged with disobedience.
Click to expand...
Even then, they are given thier day in court with JAG.
You can disobey an order and not be punished if you have good reason too.
Again, unjust, immoral, illegal.
 
Zachowon said:
Even then, they are given thier day in court with JAG.
You can disobey an order and not be punished if you have good reason too.
Again, unjust, immoral, illegal.
Click to expand...
Those first two things are subjective as all hell though. I mean someone could think that the invasion of Iraq was immoral they did not attack America, and did not even have nukes so they refuse to be sent there. They get sent to military court then found guilty and then sent to military jail. There are obvious ones that are illegal like an officer telling you to rape some civillians like yeah no shit that is illegal. But what if you are a drone operator and your superior tells you to fire on an area, and you refuse for some reason? Thats the thing, soldiers will and should follow most orders because their higher ups want them to, and they would be punished for not following them almost immediately. They will only get punished for following them if their side loses and then it's victor's justice.
 
King Arts said:
Those first two things are subjective as all hell though. I mean someone could think that the invasion of Iraq was immoral they did not attack America, and did not even have nukes so they refuse to be sent there. They get sent to military court then found guilty and then sent to military jail. There are obvious ones that are illegal like an officer telling you to rape some civillians like yeah no shit that is illegal. But what if you are a drone operator and your superior tells you to fire on an area, and you refuse for some reason? Thats the thing, soldiers will and should follow most orders because their higher ups want them to, and they would be punished for not following them almost immediately. They will only get punished for following them if their side loses and then it's victor's justice.
Click to expand...
Except they are allowed to sayb"I deem that order is wrong in some way to me personally and refuse to do it." They may try and charge you, but 99% of the time you get off scotch free.
 
King Arts said:
Those first two things are subjective as all hell though. I mean someone could think that the invasion of Iraq was immoral they did not attack America, and did not even have nukes so they refuse to be sent there. They get sent to military court then found guilty and then sent to military jail. There are obvious ones that are illegal like an officer telling you to rape some civillians like yeah no shit that is illegal. But what if you are a drone operator and your superior tells you to fire on an area, and you refuse for some reason?
Click to expand...

So while I understand that was a general circumstance for illustration, the specific counterpoint to it is just as illustrative.

In the case of drone operators, the ones who are firing weapons are controlled by Officers (either commissioned or warrant), who are expected to have an understanding of the circumstances that allow the use of weapons like that (Rules of Engagement, Authorized Use of Force, etc). When the decision is made to fire a weapon from a platform, it's confirmed that there are circumstances that necessitate/allow it, if only for the relative monetary cost associated with those weapons. Someone in a command position has (theoretically) made a decision that this particular use of force is required. At all points right up until the weapon is away, the operator has the right and duty to identify circumstances that preclude the weapon's use, such as Civilians on the Battlefield, proximity to sensitive targets, and other issues. These people who are the ones "pushing the button" are vetted before accepting that position to make sure they're NOT the kind of people who would have an issue with the appropriate use of that force (i.e. a conscientious objector or someone who broadly disagrees with enforcing national policy). They do not make assessments on the value of the target or the necessity of the mission, because those decisions were made by people who were responsible for the orders at a vastly higher level than them (for instance, use of a JDAM in the Afghan Theater of Operations required an O6 authorization for deployment (which meant a Colonel at least had to allow the weapons to be used in that particular instance, although once the authorization was given for a specific contact it wasn't required for each use of the weapon). Responsibility for the effects of that escalation would be on that commander.

Thats the thing, soldiers will and should follow most orders because their higher ups want them to, and they would be punished for not following them almost immediately. They will only get punished for following them if their side loses and then it's victor's justice.
Click to expand...

For the US Military, there is definite punishment for failure to refuse an illegal order. You can (and will) be charged for following illegal orders just as though you made the choice to perform the act yourself. And while the US refuses to be party to the International Criminal Court or even the Nuremberg Principles directly, this is because they hold the members of the US Military to even higher standards and enforce those standards more rigorously (theoretically; you're welcome to debate American Exceptionalism as good or bad as you like).
 
Panzerkraken said:
So while I understand that was a general circumstance for illustration, the specific counterpoint to it is just as illustrative.

In the case of drone operators, the ones who are firing weapons are controlled by Officers (either commissioned or warrant), who are expected to have an understanding of the circumstances that allow the use of weapons like that (Rules of Engagement, Authorized Use of Force, etc). When the decision is made to fire a weapon from a platform, it's confirmed that there are circumstances that necessitate/allow it, if only for the relative monetary cost associated with those weapons. Someone in a command position has (theoretically) made a decision that this particular use of force is required. At all points right up until the weapon is away, the operator has the right and duty to identify circumstances that preclude the weapon's use, such as Civilians on the Battlefield, proximity to sensitive targets, and other issues. These people who are the ones "pushing the button" are vetted before accepting that position to make sure they're NOT the kind of people who would have an issue with the appropriate use of that force (i.e. a conscientious objector or someone who broadly disagrees with enforcing national policy). They do not make assessments on the value of the target or the necessity of the mission, because those decisions were made by people who were responsible for the orders at a vastly higher level than them (for instance, use of a JDAM in the Afghan Theater of Operations required an O6 authorization for deployment (which meant a Colonel at least had to allow the weapons to be used in that particular instance, although once the authorization was given for a specific contact it wasn't required for each use of the weapon). Responsibility for the effects of that escalation would be on that commander.



For the US Military, there is definite punishment for failure to refuse an illegal order. You can (and will) be charged for following illegal orders just as though you made the choice to perform the act yourself. And while the US refuses to be party to the International Criminal Court or even the Nuremberg Principles directly, this is because they hold the members of the US Military to even higher standards and enforce those standards more rigorously (theoretically; you're welcome to debate American Exceptionalism as good or bad as you like).
Click to expand...
Don't all strike missions have togo through JAG before they are even sent up to be signed off to make sure what they are doing is not illegal or could cause worse issues? Part of my MOS is making sure it is the right thing and not a major screw up.
 
Zachowon said:
Don't all strike missions have togo through JAG before they are even sent up to be signed off to make sure what they are doing is not illegal or could cause worse issues? Part of my MOS is making sure it is the right thing and not a major screw up.
Click to expand...
Deployment into theater is vetted to JAG beforehand, but someone with Command Authority had to approve use in a TIC situation. For SOF TICs that meant Bagram and the JSOTF Commander. If you're talking about strike missions more generally, it's considered good policy to ensure that you have JAG review on ANY CONOP, although the Commander can authorize it on his own authority if he's willing to accept the risk.
 
Panzerkraken said:
Deployment into theater is vetted to JAG beforehand, but someone with Command Authority had to approve use in a TIC situation. For SOF TICs that meant Bagram and the JSOTF Commander. If you're talking about strike missions more generally, it's considered good policy to ensure that you have JAG review on ANY CONOP, although the Commander can authorize it on his own authority if he's willing to accept the risk.
Click to expand...
I was saying generally.
I havnt worked with SOF, and have only done exercises so I was going off what I have been told
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top