It may not be war crimes (although I’m sure that’s part of it) but pushback against doing things that are strategically flawed and will cause loss of American lives with nothing gained. Specifically, I’ve been thinking for the past couple days that the only thing stopping boots on the ground has been the military/generals, and was wondering if this shoe would drop.
WarWolfRage on
Here’s some more info for those curious.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92, subparagraph 16.c:
“Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
Authority of issuing officer [or NCO] . The commissioned officer [or NCO] issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.
A Servicemember can face adverse action for violating a lawful order; doing so is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, and sometimes Article 90 of the UCMJ and Article 91 of the UCMJ. Often, Servicemembers wonder what are lawful orders and what are unlawful orders. Article 92 provides the following guidance regarding unlawful orders:
“Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”
Article 92 also references subparagraph 16.c of the UCMJ, which states the following:
“Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge. [NOTE, the lawfulness of an order can also be decided by a Commander at an Article 15, a General Officer during the GOMOR process, or by a Separation Board/Board of Inquiry]
Authority of issuing officer [or NCO] . The commissioned officer [or NCO] issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.
Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the Service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.
Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.
The order must be directed specifically to the subordinate. Violations of regulations, standing orders or directives, or failure to perform previously established duties are not punishable under this article, but may violate Article 92.
As long as the order is understandable, the form of the order is immaterial, as is the method by which it is transmitted to the accused
The order must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. An exhortation to “obey the law” or to perform one’s military duty does not constitute an order under this article.”
3 Comments
He’s a chief of staff so…
It may not be war crimes (although I’m sure that’s part of it) but pushback against doing things that are strategically flawed and will cause loss of American lives with nothing gained. Specifically, I’ve been thinking for the past couple days that the only thing stopping boots on the ground has been the military/generals, and was wondering if this shoe would drop.
Here’s some more info for those curious.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92, subparagraph 16.c:
“Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
Authority of issuing officer [or NCO] . The commissioned officer [or NCO] issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.
A Servicemember can face adverse action for violating a lawful order; doing so is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, and sometimes Article 90 of the UCMJ and Article 91 of the UCMJ. Often, Servicemembers wonder what are lawful orders and what are unlawful orders. Article 92 provides the following guidance regarding unlawful orders:
“Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”
Article 92 also references subparagraph 16.c of the UCMJ, which states the following:
“Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge. [NOTE, the lawfulness of an order can also be decided by a Commander at an Article 15, a General Officer during the GOMOR process, or by a Separation Board/Board of Inquiry]
Authority of issuing officer [or NCO] . The commissioned officer [or NCO] issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.
Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the Service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.
Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.
The order must be directed specifically to the subordinate. Violations of regulations, standing orders or directives, or failure to perform previously established duties are not punishable under this article, but may violate Article 92.
As long as the order is understandable, the form of the order is immaterial, as is the method by which it is transmitted to the accused
The order must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. An exhortation to “obey the law” or to perform one’s military duty does not constitute an order under this article.”