Benghazi

[Phatscotty]

the sarcasm?

[Woodruff]

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.

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.

[Woodruff]

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]

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 private

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

[patrickaa317]

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.

Thank you Woody, you are correct.

[2dimes]

Ok you two, that's enough of that. "But if the troops are blind how will they aim their weapons?"

[BigBallinStalin]

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 private

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]

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 private

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.

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]

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 private

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?

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.

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.

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?

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]

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 private

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[2dimes]

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...[/quote]
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 private

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.

Nothing to add I just felt like quoting this huge thing and writing in the middle of it.

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Gee, one would have to be a legal expert to justify disobedience. How many military personnel hold law degrees in military affairs? [/quote]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 private

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]

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 private

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.

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. 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'.

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'.

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).

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...

Then again, all kinds of illegal wiretapping were conducted--but (right, that's not about military personnel). Actions like that get on my nerves anyway. Government officials can commit crimes with little repercussion, yet non-government actors usually experience greater consequences--even for minor crimes (possessing a gram of weed, or yelling at an officer).

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.

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?

Well, this is me going on about the incentives faced by the electorate on deciding on matters of US foreign policy. I wonder why we get into such crap, and it shouldn't be too surprising. Just a tangent.

[BigBallinStalin]

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 private

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?

[Woodruff]

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.

They don't need to know if their superiors are doing something wrong. Although many times they DO know, in my experience. And I think you're underestimating the average grunt. Again, we receive regular training in these things.

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'.

It's called integrity, and members of the military are expected to hold it as a high standard.

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'.

The reason that doesn't sound convincing is probably because that's nowhere near what I said. In fact, it's almost the opposite of what I said. "Lower command position" does not at all equate to "some lowly analyst" (which would be more in line with the "grunt" you mentioned previously). "Lower command position" would be an officer, probably somewhere in the Captain-Lt Col range.

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).

And yet, GITMO, Bagram, drone strikes and the like are situations where individuals have acted without integrity and by following orders that were unlawful (caveat, most drone strikes would not be considered unlawful orders).

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.

I'm not at all convinced that the US went to war on "faulty intelligence". I think the decision was made to go to war, and the "intelligence" was manufactured to support that decision. When something like that happens, that really has nothing at all to do with military members acting legally or illegally, because it is impossible for the military member to know what the intelligence contained unless they were directly involved in creating it.

[Woodruff]

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 private

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?

Are drones illegal?

[fadedpsychosis]

*lots of words said*

because I'm being lazy with limited time I'm not going to nitpick like I normally do...
BBS: you're mixing up who did what I think... as Woody said, the intelligence wasn't the reason we went to war, it was the excuse to do so... THAT did come down from the top, not the other way around. The Gitmo incident was done from the lower levels: grunts being endorsed in illegal activity by their immediate chain of command (which actually pulled down a lot of higher ups who didn't really know what was going on because they SHOULD have known and squashed it immediately) there is unfortunately no single point of failure in all of what's happened lately... there's no convenient scapegoat. A lot of bad has happened because military members followed perfectly legal orders, but the reasons behind those orders may or may not have been shady... and more bad has happened because of members conducting illegal activity and those both above and below turned a blind eye

[2dimes]

Now correct me if I'm wrong here. I have read many claims that the reason an American did not go in and assassinate Saddam was they could not legally give that order.

Later the law was changed specifically to allow them to give the order, then they did. A year or so ago Maxim magazine, did a highly over looked article on the remorse the guy who killed Bin Laden has felt, after trying to get on with life, being quietly discharged not wanting to be known, because he was just doing a job.

With Muammar they managed to get some locals filled up enough to do the task. Who knows what those guys feel because they're unknown desert dwellers.

In the absence of locals willing to assassinate the perceived bady, a drone would be nice and impersonal.

[Phatscotty]

Obama will be impeached. Maybe he can survive it, but that won't matter.

It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!

Can't change history, or the lies the Obama administration has been telling.

Official White House statement, 4 days after terrorist attack in Benghazi

[ooge]

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.

[Woodruff]

Obama will be impeached.

And Romney will win the White House. And Obamacare will not be passed. Traditional marriage will not be circumvented.
Do you ever get embarrassed by your lack of predictive success?

It will leave a stain on him, FOREVER!!!

Your absolute glee in making this statement tells me that you really aren't a very patriotic individual at all, despite your rhetoric.

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.

Oh, what does he know? He's clearly just a socialist communist gun-banning homosexual. Probably a Muslim Kenyan too. I heard he wanted to run the Department of Education instead of the Department of Defense.

[warmonger1981]

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?

[ooge]

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?

no,but the CIA is out of control,I would not be surprised by anything they are accused of doing at this point.They need oversight,it wont happen though.The flag wavers will come out and say your siding with the terrorists if someone attempted oversight.

[Phatscotty]

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?

warmer

Obama is in deeper than Oliver North

[AndyDufresne]

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?

What streets are you walking on, where people are talking about CIA stuff? Do you hang out at the corner of CIA Street and Wiretap Avenue?


--Andy