Among those being mentioned for Trump’s secretary of defense are Christopher Miller, who served temporarily during his administration, Michael Flynn and Mike Pompeo.
Donald Trump is sparking fears among those who understand the inner workings of the Pentagon that he would convert the nonpartisan U.S. military into the muscular arm of his political agenda as he makes comments about dictatorship and devalues the checks and balances that underpin the nation’s two-century-old democracy.
A circle of appointees independent of Trump’s political operation steered him away from ideas that would have pushed the limits of presidential power in his last term, according to books they’ve written and testimony given to Congress. Most were gone by the end. In a new term, many former officials worry that Trump would instead surround himself with loyalists unwilling to say no.
Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.
I would be more comfortable if the US actually had law that said US military officers weren’t obligated to follow orders they know to be illegal. Germany has that post WW2, but technically in the US you can be punished, maybe even imprisoned, for not following a dictator’s orders.
Pretty sure the Manual for Courts-Martial specifically says only lawful orders need to be followed
That’s cool, and yeah I would expect the military court to take those things into consideration. However, Trump has already shown a propensity to stacking courts, so that’s not necessarily something I would cling my hopes to.
That’s not true at all. Following an unlawful order is illegal and not a valid excuse.
The officer oath is to support the and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (aka disobeying a direct order) spells out that it only applies to lawful orders.
Anything illegal is non binding, and stating you’re following an order is not an excuse. That’s literally one of the rules of the Geneva convention.
All that to say, not at all true. What I really would expect if Trump tried pulling this off with the military is a huge amount of resistance and pushback and no one in command really following the illegal orders.
There might be some schism group of crazies who try and jump the chain of command because they’re MAGA crazies in the military, but it’s definitely a small minority.
The US Military is a volunteer force, the officer corps has been taught and studied the history of these type of bad orders and crazy situations extensively. The NCO corps and rest of the enlisted are not ignorant bumpkins who are ignorant of their jobs and their duty to the constitution.
I don’t think it really “isn’t true at all”. While I agree with you, by and large the US military are very competent and truly patriotic, you yourself mention a “schism group of crazies” who would circumvent things. I don’t think it’s likely they would take over comprehensively, but I worry that the possibility of some critical mass succeeding is there.
I think the US is far more likely to wrangle around what a “lawful order” is than many other countries.
My experience is only anecdotal, but while I served in the USAF, I saw and expected officers and enlisted personnel to uphold integrity first and excellence in all we do. I did not meet anyone who didn’t take their oath seriously or those who would put politics before country. Also the political spectrum I met while enlisted was very broad and I personally doubt the caliber of men and women truly needed to overthrow the government would be on board with the plan due to how seriously we take our oath.
Their oath is to Commander-in-Chief. What are they going to do with placed Pentagon lawyers declaring lawful orders like Gitmo torture.