Civil War-again?

[ohio jones]

I don't know if it's possible to discuss this subject without getting political, but please make a concerted effort to do so if you don't want the thread moved.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[JohnH]

How could there be a civil war? Where would the boundaries be? Who would take over what territory to win? This is not like the original civil war, North vs South, it is not geographical. Sending federal troops into places like Las Vegas and Chicago does smack of a civil war, I guess, but there is no opposing army.

Use your imagination a bit. Purely hypothetically, suppose there are members of Congress calling for the military to disobey orders, and specifically trying to provoke an officers' coup.

Then, boom, there's a civil war with one faction of officers loyal to whatever party in Congress called for the coup, and the other party loyal to the existing President. Enlisted men end up deserting and joining the other faction based on their own party loyalties.

I agree that division is out of hand. Valerie refers to this video, which simply reminds the military that they must obey the law and refuse illegal orders. Is that controversial? Do we want a military that is willing to use force illegally on American soil? Do we want a military that is willing to do whatever a president says, even if it is wildly illegal? Is that something Mennonites should actively support as peacemakers?

Every person who enlists in the military and goes through basic training is told over and over not to do follow illegal orders and there is extensive training to understand what an illegal order is.

However, at the same time, trying to foment a rebellion or trying to persuade members of the military to disobey orders is actually illegal in the U.S. - do you think it shouldn't be?

[Bootstrap]

How could there be a civil war? Where would the boundaries be? Who would take over what territory to win? This is not like the original civil war, North vs South, it is not geographical. Sending federal troops into places like Las Vegas and Chicago does smack of a civil war, I guess, but there is no opposing army.

Use your imagination a bit. Purely hypothetically, suppose there are members of Congress calling for the military to disobey orders, and specifically trying to provoke an officers' coup.

Then, boom, there's a civil war with one faction of officers loyal to whatever party in Congress called for the coup, and the other party loyal to the existing President. Enlisted men end up deserting and joining the other faction based on their own party loyalties.

That's one nightmare scenario. The other nightmare scenario is a president who can command the military to do whatever he wants, using the military against Americans to promote his agenda. The law is designed to avoid both.

I see a HUGE difference between saying:

1. If the order is illegal, disobey it, that's how we protect the Constitution, versus
2. Disobey orders if you don't like them or want to be on the other side.

The video was pretty clear. If the order is illegal disobey it.

I agree that division is out of hand. Valerie refers to this video, which simply reminds the military that they must obey the law and refuse illegal orders. Is that controversial? Do we want a military that is willing to use force illegally on American soil? Do we want a military that is willing to do whatever a president says, even if it is wildly illegal? Is that something Mennonites should actively support as peacemakers?

Every person who enlists in the military and goes through basic training is told over and over not to do follow illegal orders and there is extensive training to understand what an illegal order is.

However, at the same time, trying to foment a rebellion or trying to persuade members of the military to disobey orders is actually illegal in the U.S. - do you think it shouldn't be?

Ummmm .... trying to persuade the military to follow the law and disobey illegal orders is against the law? I doubt it. Can you provide evidence for this claim?

[JohnH]

I see a HUGE difference between saying:

1. If the order is illegal, disobey it, that's how we protect the Constitution, versus
2. Disobey orders if you don't like them or want to be on the other side.

The video was pretty clear. If the order is illegal disobey it.

Well, I'm here to discuss history and hypotheticals, not videos of politicians, but let's say there is a situation where a politician who currently is not in power threatens members of the military that they will be "court martialled" if they don't disobey various military orders, when he or she does get into power.

That seems troubling to me. I am currently trying to find an example of where this has happened in history before.

Ummmm .... trying to persuade the military to follow the law and disobey illegal orders is against the law? I doubt it. Can you provide evidence for this claim?

I am just discussing hypotheticals, as would be appropriate in the History subforum. In U.S. history, it has generally been illegal to try to threaten members of the military to disobey orders, such as (for a purely hypothetical example) threatening that you will court-martial them for some kind of offence when you win political power in the future, if they don't disobey current military orders now.

That's one nightmare scenario. The other nightmare scenario is a president who can command the military to do whatever he wants, using the military against Americans to promote his agenda. The law is designed to avoid both.

In U.S. history, civilian control of the military has been a very important thing, and that civilian control is exerted through a democratic process with an elected President as Commander-in-Chief, and then an elected Congress consisting of House and Senate with oversight including the ability to commission officers and impeach them for high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Soloist]

There is a very thin line between a legal order and an illegal order.
People who refuse to deploy to Iraq, were court marshaled.
There is no ethical position without sacrifice. If you’re in the military, you’re told to not obey illegal orders, but then you’re not given the training to distinguish which one is and which one isn’t. that is done by the Jag officers and officers in general.
What we are doing in Venezuela is crossing the line. when the admiral retires, that’s a protest.
Unlike all of you, I actually was in the military, and I was in the position of being given illegal orders.

[barnhart]

Thanks for weighing in soloist.

[Southerner]

There is a very thin line between a legal order and an illegal order.
People who refuse to deploy to Iraq, were court marshaled.
There is no ethical position without sacrifice. If you’re in the military, you’re told to not obey illegal orders, but then you’re not given the training to distinguish which one is and which one isn’t. that is done by the Jag officers and officers in general.
What we are doing in Venezuela is crossing the line. when the admiral retires, that’s a protest.
Unlike all of you, I actually was in the military, and I was in the position of being given illegal orders.

Can you explain to me what is happening to Mark Kelly? I haven't had a chance to read the article about it, he is being court martialed???

[Soloist]

Can you explain to me what is happening to Mark Kelly? I haven’t had a chance to read the article about it, he is being court martialed???

I don’t know the conditions or what specifically is going on because I haven’t read in detail, and I haven’t heard the officer I work for comment nor asked.
What I do know is that retirement is not what most people think. He’s still a commissioned officer.
Consider his retirement check as a retainer, not as a retirement check.
The same thing is technically true for enlisted who retire, but is a lot less common.
So yes, he could as far as I’m aware still be brought up in a court marshal. I suppose it gets increasingly sticky because he’s also in political office so I suspect it’s just a political hit piece.

[temporal1]

There is a very thin line between a legal order and an illegal order.
People who refuse to deploy to Iraq, were court marshaled.

There is no ethical position without sacrifice.
If you’re in the military, you’re told to not obey illegal orders, but then you’re not given the training to distinguish which one is and which one isn’t. that is done by the Jag officers and officers in general. .. ..

i think so.
these are some of many reasons lots of people will not voluntarily join the military, vote, engage in politics.
during the 60’s draft, MANY enlisted, subject to draft and not, protested in many ways, some going to Canada, etc. (there have since been changes, in future, Canada will not be an option.)

to broadly counsel laypersons to decide as individuals (matters that stymie courts, what is legal, what is not) is irresponsible,
not because it’s not true. it’s not FULL truth. FULL truth would describe SACRIFICE involved in taking a stand, esp based on personal opinion.

to repeat myself, when Slotkin said, “we’ve got your backs” - presumably, she was saying, “vote for us, we’ve got your backs” -
sure they do. i would suggest: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. “the comfortable six” in the video do not put my mind at ease. YMMV

i never ever deluded myself i could join the military. for numbers of reasons. i don’t hate those who do. i believe there are many reasons to join. i pray for their protection and for their souls.

basically, this matter reminds of tales of mutiny on the seas, which can happen on private vessels.
maybe it’s not mutinous. maybe they’re innocent as newborn babes.

people can have strong convictions. eventually, matters may end up in courts, civil or military.
i agree with Soloist, some degree of SACRIFICE will be involved.

“the comfortable six” don’t strike me as interested in their own sacrifice. Mark Kelly appears incensed he’s so much as questioned.
“how dare you!” there’s so much hyperbole and trash talk. political theater.

the innocent should not fear court. it’s their opportunity to be vindicated. Mark K knows this.
“the comfortable six” are politicians with ambitions. AIR WAVES are valuable, the more the better. watch for following episodes.

courts rule.

[Bootstrap]

There is a very thin line between a legal order and an illegal order.
People who refuse to deploy to Iraq, were court marshaled.
There is no ethical position without sacrifice.

They were disobeying a lawful order. An unethical order, I think, but a lawful one. To refuse a lawful order is insubordination, failure to obey, or desertion, depending on circumstances.

An illegal order is an order that (1) violates the Constitution or US law, or (2) requires a service member to commit a war crime.

If you’re in the military, you’re told to not obey illegal orders, but then you’re not given the training to distinguish which one is and which one isn’t. that is done by the Jag officers and officers in general.
What we are doing in Venezuela is crossing the line. when the admiral retires, that’s a protest.

I agree that identifying an illegal order is almost impossible from lower in the chain of command. Only JAGs and senior officers are really in a position to judge that. And normally troops can safely assume that the lawyers and commanders have already vetted the legality.

As you see it, what specifically makes the Venezuela situation an unlawful order?

The consequences for refusing might have been the same either way. Even if the order was unlawful, a service member would still be charged with refusing a lawful order, because orders are presumed legal until a court rules otherwise. And I don't think the government would say "oh yes, you're right, our orders were unlawful."

Unlike all of you, I actually was in the military, and I was in the position of being given illegal orders.

Can you share about that experience?

You're right, I was not in the military. But the people who made the video were all in the military or intelligence services. They all swore an oath to the Constitution. And they also swore an oath to the Constitution to serve in Congress.

- Mark Kelly: Former US Navy Captain. Aviator and combat pilot who flew combat missions during the Gulf War.
- Elizabeth Slotkin: Former CIA intelligence officer, later held a series of national security and defense policy civilian roles.
- Jason Crow: Former Captain in the US Army. Served as an Army Ranger in the 82nd Airborne Division and the elite 75th Ranger Regiment. Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan on multiple combat tours, served as a platoon leader in combat. Awarded a Bronze Star.
- Chris Deluzio: Former Lieutenant in the US Navy. Deployed to Iraq. Served from 2006 to 2012 as a surface warfare officer.
- Maggie Goodlander: Former US Navy Reserve, serving as a naval intelligence officer.
- Chrissy Houlahan: Former Captain in the US Air Force. Served both active and reserve from 1989 to 2004.

So I was not in the military, and I do not have knowledge and experience in this area. But they do. And in the video, they specifically refer to the oath to defend the Constitution and the seriousness of that oath.