Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 0
Totally wrong for Trump to say that. Mind you, not surprising and frankly it reflects accurately on a culture that is more trailer park and ghetto by the day.....
And on another note....
Yours truly has long said : I hope they day comes when "orders" are not followed whether it's right or wrong. I want it to be where your "chain of command" and "civilian rule"---both - are in peril and not dependable one day.
I feel an E4 in the battlefield should be allowed to refuse orders.
I bet Putin agrees - where it comes to you.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Totally wrong for Trump to say that. Mind you, not surprising and frankly it reflects accurately on a culture that is more trailer park and ghetto by the day.....
That is how Trump thinks. Remember when he suggested security people "rough up" demonstrators at his rallies, in 2016? Remember when he said he could shoot someone down, in the middle of the street, and it wouldn't hurt his poll numbers?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 7
feel an E4 in the battlefield should be allowed to refuse orders.
Illegal, unconstitutional orders? They are duty and oath bound to refuse them.
Legal oders? They are duty and oath bound to obey them.
You seem to be arguing for destroying the distinction and disobeying all orders.
Strange position to hold.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Illegal, unconstitutional orders? They are duty and oath bound to refuse them.
Legal oders? They are duty and oath bound to obey them.
You seem to be arguing for destroying the distinction and disobeying all orders.
Strange position to hold.
***
Agreed.
But yes.
I want the chain of command to be shaky. And if it can be disobey4ed for this---then ---slippery slope. I'm all for it.
Strange? Ok.
Mine? Yep.
I think the enlisted man should get his orders and then ask Twitter what they think. And make sure his superior didn't genderize.
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is how Trump thinks. Remember when he suggested security people "rough up" demonstrators at his rallies, in 2016? Remember when he said he could shoot someone down, in the middle of the street, and it wouldn't hurt his poll numbers?
Steve
***
Yep.
Kind of like Obama saying "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun. You get in their faces" when he ran for President.
I salute both.
Until someone can call out THEIR OWN side equally - i don't care.
When someone can start calling out BOTH sides loudly -- count me in if i'm feeling nostalgia or weak :)
No. of Recommendations: 0
The video by the Dems was clearly intended to be an attack on Trump, and intended to imply, with somewhat plausible deniability, that they were suggesting that each and every person in the military should use their personal judgment to actively question any order they should get and use their own personal judgment as to whether it was "legal" or "illegal," and then follow their own conscience about it. But the obvious purpose was to insinuate that Trump was giving unlawful orders.
Basically trying to soft-undermine military discipline (and also within the intelligence community). It's like when the 51 intelligence community people with the letter suggesting Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" tried to claim no, they didn't ever SAY it WAS Russian disinformation; it just had "all the earmarks" of Russian disinformation.
An extremely "legalistic" and pedantic way of communication. But you can't just look at the statement or letter or video piecemeal. What was the overall thrust, intent, or purpose in the first place?
It was to communicate to the soldiers and intelligence officers that they should not trust their chain of command, with Trump at its head. That they should expect to receive and be wary of receiving illegal orders. That they should use their own personal judgment and feelings to determine what was a valid order, what was not a valid order--but with zero objective standards or criteria. That's not how it works.
The video Dems didn't provide a single specific example of what they deemed an illegal order. Nor did they provide objective guidelines for how an individual person in the armed forces should try to determine an order's legality or illegality. Nor did they counsel that a confused military personnel should bring the issues up through their chain of command; or to a JAG officer.
It was pure unadulterated psyops propaganda, it was destructive, was for political gain, and yet: cowardly.
And you cannot successfully take a run at Trump like that and expect it to be a winning play.
Trump's response was perfect: "They're traitors, they should hang." Over the top, hyperbole, but communicating the point that these politicians were not acting for the good of the country, and did not care about the good of the country. And one of the video Dems even (ridiculously) claimed that Trump "threatened" her.
No, he didn't. And she's a coward. A better response would have been to use her platform to clarify her view of what an illegal order from Trump, or a commander on behalf of Trump, would comprise. Use examples from history. Use present-day incidents that she sincerely thinks constitutes an illegal order. Even mocking the "threat."
She did something stupid serving only to undermine military discipline for her own political benefit, she got called out, and she's whining because sticks and stones apparently do break bones.
Lady, if you are making a point with your colleagues of actually telling people in the armed services that they need to disobey orders that they consider "illegal," with absolutely no guidance as to what that even means, you are setting them up for being charged with insubordination and possibly court martialed. You are deliberately undermining the chain of command and military discipline. You are possibly putting their lives and those of their comrades at arms at risk. For no reason other than your own political gain.
Will you actually hang? No. Should your political career hang in a figurative sense?
Absolutely.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Until someone can call out THEIR OWN side equally - i don't care.
The violence and threats are not equal, and have not come equally from both sides.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Until someone can call out THEIR OWN side equally - i don't care.
The violence and threats are not equal, and have not come equally from both sides.
***
But both sides have participated in the snowball for decades.
Hey, not my monkey not my circus -- was just expressing an avenue.
Whether your tribes kiss and make up, co-exist, or make 1/6 look like a timid tradition - - no worries here.
Sorry, weak these days a bit.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The violence and threats are not equal, and have not come equally from both sides.
Indeed. The left's street army has been running around hurting people for years now and this board has always been fine with it.
"Summer of love" and all that.
