Personally, only twice, although there were several times where I advised an Officer that they were not authorized to give a particular order. They listened.
On one occasion the officer angrily brought it to the attention of the chain of command, who told him he was a dumbass and thanked me for keeping him out of trouble. On the other we didn't talk about it afterwards and it never came back up.
That sort of rule would matter if it's an order that guy giving it wouldn't want to guys 2,3, or 4 steps up to know about.
Plenty of times. The results were about the same as they were for me personally. However, I should point out that generally those orders come about because of a misunderstanding of a situation on the part of the person giving the order, not out of some moral failing on their part. Most of the time, someone says "Do this." and then receives a response of "Sir, that's not right. Look at this point here." "Oh, my bad, never mind."
I wasn't exactly asking about the number of times someone pointed out a factual detail a superior didn't know. If pointing something out is enough to resolve the issue, it's not the sort of thing that backs up Zachowon's claim.
See, that's the thing.. if I'm deeming something unconstitutional and JAG disagrees, one of us wrong. They're the professional lawyers, so you'd think they'd have it right. Give me an example of what you think would be an unconstitutional order that would be subject to enough interpretation that JAG would disagree with me? Constitutional law sounds really complicated but it's not so difficult from a military perspective.
My argument with Zachowon was specifically in response to certain comments he made in relation to other topics being discussed, specifically, his claims that "They won't make a loyal military" and "And everyone lower level can tell someone to fuck off because they are legally allowed to. Especially if we deem the order unconstitutional." These were in response to a discussion of discussion of taxpayer-funded trans surgeries in the military and the notion of antidepressants being issued for that same issue. Additionally, when I argued that the military was already, essentially, loyal to the system, I brought up the use of the military in forced integration and bussing. I think Zachowon's first comment also relates back to an earlier discussion in this thread about the policy of the Biden administration of cracking down on right-wingers in the military (banning certain symbols, etc.).
At the core, I think my disagreement with Zachowon is that I think that the military as an institution is effectively part of and loyal to the system. He doesn't. I'm not sure that you don't- your earlier comments didn't really indicate this to me, so we might not actually disagree on this (although we probably have a different perspective on it).
So, in the spirit of getting things back to the actual topics being discussed, some examples for you 1) The President has ordered a ban on trans people joining the military. Your superior officers (and up the chain of command) are trying to slow this down and limit it's extent. You've been asked to sign off on something related by them, say a trans person's recruitment. 2) The President has ordered that surgeries/hormones for trans people not be funded. Your superior officers (and so on up) wish to fund some and have ordered you to sign off on them. 3) The President has ordered that surgeries/hormones for trans people be funded. A representative has said that pushing this through without congress approving of this use of funding is "constitutionally dubious." Your superior officers (and so on up) have ordered you to sign off on them. And since Zachowon is of the opinion that antidepressants would be some special line in the sand, here, how about 4) and 5): the same questions as 2) and 3) but replacing funding surgeries/hormones with allowing and funding antidepressants.
Additionally, on some more general stuff that's been discussed- 6) The supreme court has overturned it's 2007 decision against bussing. Some White parents and children are refusing to comply. The national guard has been called in, but is also refusing to enforce the decision. You have been called in to enforce it. 7) The supreme court has overturned it's 2007 decision against bussing. Some White parents and children are refusing to comply. You are in the national guard, and have been called in to enforce it. 8) You have been ordered to tell your superior officer if you see any of the people you command with a list of "extremist symbols." You see one of them with one- specifically, a "Pepe the Frog" symbol. 9) The FBI suspects that one of the people you command has an online account where he expresses nationalist ideas. You have been ordered to assist them in their investigation. You are concerned that if the investigation is successful they will leak the information to antifa or the press 10) One of the people you command has been linked to an online account where he expresses nationalist ideas. FBI would like to interrogate him over this, and you have been ordered by a superior officer to order him to do talk to them. 11) You have been ordered to jail this person for a week in solitary confinement, without any charges or formal legal action against him, and you have been ordered to order him to sign an NDA about it.
@Zachowon curious what your responses would be in the same examples.
