Moderator: Community Team
2dimes wrote:Woodruff wrote:2dimes wrote:I assure you there's a reason B.K. Barunt and many other fellows, several veterens become, how should I word it? Less than patriotic after service.
To be honest, I actually consider them to be QUITE patriotic. Certainly their brand of patriotism is different than what most think, but they're much more interested in the IDEALS of this country than most of the jingoistic, unrepentant fucktards who claim to be patriotic.
Well, that is why I am at a loss for preferred wording.
Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure.
rishaed wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:This topic is all just out of control. Remember it was spontaneous riots that caused this attack on the embassy. The CIA report even said that, and there is no way this transparent administration would edit the talking points behind what truly happened.
Anybody else see what is funny with this statement?
2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
Woodruff wrote:rishaed wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:This topic is all just out of control. Remember it was spontaneous riots that caused this attack on the embassy. The CIA report even said that, and there is no way this transparent administration would edit the talking points behind what truly happened.
Anybody else see what is funny with this statement?
Having seen Patrick in this forum enough, I'm quite certain that was intentional.
fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
BigBallinStalin wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.
The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.
But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.
So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.
The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.
The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.
But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.
So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.
Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.
The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.
That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's weird. If a company indirectly kills people (e.g. a chemical spill), and even though it's been paying billions for years to workers' salaries and into the local markets, people nevertheless become enraged (and rightly so). The company usually is held to some degree culpable. But, when such words like "government" or "national security" become involved, and when the government steps into that vague area beyond the Law and kills many innocent civilians, then what? Where's the outrage? Where's the distrust? Where's the serious pursuit of justice within the government?
BigBallinStalin wrote:The dissociation with government intervention is amazing. It also goes back to the electorate. Many of them supported a war in Iraq, voted (ir)responsibly, and none were held culpable for their actions. Whether or not they should, is another matter, but if one can easily ignore/avoid the costs of one's decisions, then the possibility of attaining good outcomes (for more than oneself and friends) seems miniscule.
Woodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed.As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.Nothing to add I just felt like quoting this huge thing and writing in the middle of it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.
The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.
That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's weird. If a company indirectly kills people (e.g. a chemical spill), and even though it's been paying billions for years to workers' salaries and into the local markets, people nevertheless become enraged (and rightly so). The company usually is held to some degree culpable. But, when such words like "government" or "national security" become involved, and when the government steps into that vague area beyond the Law and kills many innocent civilians, then what? Where's the outrage? Where's the distrust? Where's the serious pursuit of justice within the government?
BigBallinStalin wrote:The dissociation with government intervention is amazing. It also goes back to the electorate. Many of them supported a war in Iraq, voted (ir)responsibly, and none were held culpable for their actions. Whether or not they should, is another matter, but if one can easily ignore/avoid the costs of one's decisions, then the possibility of attaining good outcomes (for more than oneself and friends) seems miniscule.
BigBallinStalin wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.
What about the president ordering the extrajudicial killing of that American citizen? Wasn't that illegal?
I certainly can't do it--even if I can demonstrate that the victim was telling others to kill 'my people' (i.e. my family).
Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.
The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.
But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.
So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.
Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs?
No, not really. Again, we do receive training on things like the Geneva Convention and similar other directives regarding the "rules of war", so there really is no excuse for violating them.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.
The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.
That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.
No, in all sincerity, it is not the higher leadership of the military that is typically the problem. Almost universally, it is an individual in a lower command position that creates the messes. It really isn't the problem you seem to be implying it is.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.
Ok, but that's not a situation of disobeying an unlawful military order.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:It's weird. If a company indirectly kills people (e.g. a chemical spill), and even though it's been paying billions for years to workers' salaries and into the local markets, people nevertheless become enraged (and rightly so). The company usually is held to some degree culpable. But, when such words like "government" or "national security" become involved, and when the government steps into that vague area beyond the Law and kills many innocent civilians, then what? Where's the outrage? Where's the distrust? Where's the serious pursuit of justice within the government?
I don't disagree with you here at all. In fact, I very much agree. But I'm not sure what you're driving at, as far as this aspect of the conversation.Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The dissociation with government intervention is amazing. It also goes back to the electorate. Many of them supported a war in Iraq, voted (ir)responsibly, and none were held culpable for their actions. Whether or not they should, is another matter, but if one can easily ignore/avoid the costs of one's decisions, then the possibility of attaining good outcomes (for more than oneself and friends) seems miniscule.
Are we talking about something different now?
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.
What about the president ordering the extrajudicial killing of that American citizen? Wasn't that illegal?
I certainly can't do it--even if I can demonstrate that the victim was telling others to kill 'my people' (i.e. my family).
Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Plus the drones.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:The underlined is ABSOLUTELY true. In fact, we are trained that way.
But see...here's the problem. If you're going to maintain that an order you've been given is an unlawful order and so you're not going to follow it, you damn well better be right, because if it is eventually determined NOT to have been an unlawful order, you will pay the price and the price for disobeying a direct order can be pretty serious, particularly given a wartime circumstance.
So basically it comes down to your level of confidence not just in the situation, but also as to how well you can prove what the situation was and your reaction to it.
Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs?
No, not really. Again, we do receive training on things like the Geneva Convention and similar other directives regarding the "rules of war", so there really is no excuse for violating them.
I really don't see how a grunt would possess enough knowledge of military law and the Law of the USG in order to even know if their superiors are doing something wrong.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't see how the incentive structure of "doing what you're told" + limited knowledge of the law and higher-up information would create an environment where the soldier would consistently 'do the right thing'.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Most of the time when we find out about those sorts of things, it is due to individuals who didn't just keep their head down. Many times, sadly, they do take a LOT of heat for it, but generally speaking the heat they take is from their peers or direct line of supervision (Lieuteant Colonel and below), rather than the higher leadership of the military.
The reason it may SEEM that this isn't the case is because too many yokels "buy into" the idea of whatever's being done, whether that is abusing prisoners or shooting innocents or whatever, instead of kepeing their integrity.
That's interesting. If the "CEO" and executive board can keep themselves clean of the mess they create, then I don't see how any punishment of the lower-level "management" will correct the fundamental problems.
No, in all sincerity, it is not the higher leadership of the military that is typically the problem. Almost universally, it is an individual in a lower command position that creates the messes. It really isn't the problem you seem to be implying it is.
Really? The Bush adminstration pursued a war in Iraq because some lowly analyst in the National Reconnaissance Office (or whatever) misinterpreted a pile of rubbish as WMDs? I really don't find that convincing--especially if there's conflicting reports and for some odd reason the administration keeps harping on the rubbish 'intelligence'.
BigBallinStalin wrote:That's the degree of the mess I'm talking about, so maybe that would clear the misunderstanding here. Stuff like drone strikes, GITMO, Bagram, torturing, etc. These are executive-level decisions, which the executives are not later held accountable for. That's the problem I'm talking about here (to be clear).
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:It's strange. The most powerful positions in the world are in certain areas incapable of being prosecuted, and who would have the guts to call for an investigation and carry through with it--fully? I recall the Bush 2.0 administration deleting all their emails. The war on Iraq, based on terrible intelligence (or rather, bullshit), is a great example.
Ok, but that's not a situation of disobeying an unlawful military order.
Maybe that's the problem. It's not illegal to go to war on faulty intelligence and not be held accountable for the costs. I bet plenty of politicians would vote for that kind of law.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:2dimes wrote:Blindly agreeing with the president is potentially important for an active duty member of the armed forces at the lower levels for sure. End up involved in the wrong operation and experience some corrupt comanding officers or maybe some operation some in the chain of command would rather you just agree with, and...
it's not that we blindly agree with the president, it's that we are supposed to (and in fact are legally obligated) to keep our private opinions privateWoodruff wrote:Actually, I don't think it's important in any way. Not necessary at all. What IS necessary is that active duty member support the policies of the President anyway, regardless of their agreement, as long as nothing criminal is directed. As well, the active duty member needs to maintain the impression of propriety, as the US military is highly interested in public appearance.
yeah, what he said
Just wondering: I don't think the underlined is true.
What about the president ordering the extrajudicial killing of that American citizen? Wasn't that illegal?
I certainly can't do it--even if I can demonstrate that the victim was telling others to kill 'my people' (i.e. my family).
Or what of GITMO, Bagram, and that whole mess? Surely, the Law was vague then... perhaps, if the president operates within the gray areas of the law, then... somehow it's "legal," so everyone will simply keep their head down and do nothing lawful?
Plus the drones.
C'mon, Sym. Drones are totes legal. It's for national security. Don't you want to be safe?
people wrote:*lots of words said*
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
Phatscotty wrote:Obama will be impeached.
Phatscotty wrote:It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!
ooge wrote:life long republican and previous Defense secretary Bob Gates stated those looking into this "scandal" have a cartoonish view on what the US military is capable of.
warmonger1981 wrote:I hear on the streets the CIA is having an internal fight and something to do with weapons smuggling. Anyone else hear anything like that?
warmonger1981 wrote:I hear on the streets the CIA is having an internal fight and something to do with weapons smuggling. Anyone else hear anything like that?
warmonger1981 wrote:I hear on the streets the CIA is having an internal fight and something to do with weapons smuggling. Anyone else hear anything like that?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: Dukasaur