Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Here it comes: Syria

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Here it comes: Syria

Old 5th Sep 2013, 01:45
  #1161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,310
Westy,

This is not "Business" where it is a financial loss that is the result of wrong headed thinking.

In the Military the Troops have a legal obligation to refuse Unlawful Orders....at the Four Star level you have a Moral obligation to refuse to carry out patently wrong orders.

As I said....if you are given marching orders by the President and you know in your Heart they shall lead to an ugly end.....you stand up, resign on the spot, Salute, do an About Face and march smartly off to clean out your desk on your way home on your first day of Retirement.

As a Four Star you owe it to the Troops to do the absolute right thing even if it means ending your career on the spot.

Otherwise.....the entire house collapses from Rot.
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 01:54
  #1162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
And it wasn't that long ago that a British general (Mike Jackson) refused to carry
out Wesley Clarkes order to attack the Russians at the airport.

So it is not unheard of.



Re his speaking out in public, in some ways I think frank and forthright
discussion and in some ways opinions should be held behind doors.

His comment at the hearing, the most diplomatic way of handling it
that he could ? Or as someone said, to send a message ?

Last edited by 500N; 5th Sep 2013 at 02:06. Reason: Put the wrong name !
500N is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:00
  #1163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Nutloose:

It wasn't 4 stars I was talking about...
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:01
  #1164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 50
Posts: 1,599
General Sir Michael Jackson. Not Rose.
Roadster280 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:09
  #1165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,461
Following illegal orders isn't a 4 star issue alone but i disgress. You need to prove this is an illegal order to begin with. That is very much in the air depending on who your favorite politician is. He has a boatload of DoD lawyers available to provide opinion and while not privy to the procedural process I would have to think legally vetting a course of action is standard faire. Anything that's gray is going to fall in the Presidents favor.

I'm sure you see this as illegal, and that's fine. I think we've drug this particular tentacle of the larger argument out as far as it can go.
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:23
  #1166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,310
You did not read the post accurately.

I said the Troops had a legal obligation and the Four Stars....a Moral obligation.

They are hugely different.

Would you have a Four Star not stand up when it was the right thing to do but merely STFU, salute, and carry out those Orders he knew were wrong....and would surely result in grave harm to his troops and his country?

AT this point I do not believe the President has the legal authority to order a military strike against Syria. I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but my understanding of the 1973 War Powers Act and the Constitution, in consideration of the facts of this situation.....the President must seek authority from Congress.

I also question whether Congress can authorize a military strike as envisioned without officially Declaring War on Syria.

That is a separate issue to the what we are talking about. I see Dempsey being in a position that tells him attacking Syria is not the best or correct course of action to take. I also see him realizing 80% of the American People are adamantly opposed to any use of military force against Syria. I would assume, if he does feel the attack is unwise, he has conveyed that to the President in private.

All that being said.....if the Congress refuses the authority....and the President does as he has said he would do.....goes ahead and orders the Attack.....then Dempsey must make the decision I am talking about. Either he believes in what he is telling the President or he does not. If he does....he can only refuse to carry out that order. Whether he gets fired or he Resigns....is the only thing he as to decide really.

By the way what happened to General Ham and that Navy Admiral that got the sudden retirements immediately after Benghazi happened a year ago?

You reckon something along those lines happened?
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:36
  #1167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
"By the way what happened to General Ham and that Navy Admiral that got the sudden retirements immediately after Benghazi happened a year ago?"

Didn't general Ham try to launch something - ie refused the order to NOT do something to help rescue and his deputy relieved him ?
500N is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:41
  #1168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,461
A PFC humping a -60 over hill and dale has the same moral obligation. You will not convince me otherwise of this point.


But to the meat of our disagreement...

You state you don't know if this is a legal order or not. Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people. Thus I am not going to pass judgement on the good General short of a definitive answer.

If in the face of a clearly illegal order obvious to even to those of us who don't practice law for a living, then yes, I would agree any service member subject to the UCMJ should balk.

Edited to address General Ham, I hope he writes a New York Times best seller, tell all that sends she Clinton into retirement.

Last edited by West Coast; 5th Sep 2013 at 02:44.
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:47
  #1169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
I thought most US decisions were already run past legal people anyway who pass an opinion.

Last edited by 500N; 5th Sep 2013 at 02:56.
500N is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 02:51
  #1170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,461
I would think so as well.
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 04:00
  #1171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,540
And The Shrub's* legal advisers told him that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc weren't torture, and that he could wiretap without warrants.

Both were later found by the actual legal authorities in the US to be verboten, and were shut down.

Sometimes your legal people give very bad advice.



* Shrub = small Bush

Last edited by GreenKnight121; 5th Sep 2013 at 04:01.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 04:15
  #1172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,461
Who were those legal authorities?

Other lawyers?
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 04:17
  #1173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
I thought the lawyers in the military were military lawyers.

I doubt Bushy et al would use them, they would be too black and white
for the pollies and not give them the answer they wanted !!!
500N is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 04:41
  #1174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,310
Watching the crap that this administration gets away with because of a Media that adores him.....is sheer torture as well! That is not a legal opinion but is just as accurate and unbiased as what the lawyers throw out at us.
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 04:47
  #1175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,461
500

Not true.


Department of the Navy, Office of the General Counsel - Attorney & Lawyer Careers
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 06:15
  #1176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 559
I looked at POTUS body language when he spoke in Sweden. I'm no expert, but he looked very sheepish when he tried to dilute the red line by the ' it's the worlds red line' thing. He looked like he was testing the water as to how that 'line' would be received.

In the immortal words of Blackadder 'He looks as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo'...
high spirits is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 07:57
  #1177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,118
re the refusing to obey an illegal order, this is a given in the UK Armed Forces, and I'm sure in the USA ones as well, for all ranks from private to Field Marshal. By definition it has to be your decision, thus you immediately go out on a limb, report the order up your CoC, and await developments.

They will come down fast about your head, and given past precedent in the UK, it will be you that is in the poo and not the superior who issued you the order. Tough! You have done your duty and must now take the consequences. When the order is a life and death one, whether it be about subverting airworthiness regulations or pouring down "limited" TLAMs on another country without Security Council authorisation, you will at least be able to live with yourself in your suddenly leisure filled retirement. Many others at the receiving end of the "limited" action won't.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 08:04
  #1178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
"pouring down "limited" TLAMs on another country
without Security Council authorisation"

Is that illegal ?

What about what Clinton did in trying to kill Osama with TLAMS ?

It raises some interesting questions.


What about Firing 3 Torpedos at the Belgrano ?
(I haven't read the legalistic BS behind this so don't jump on me)
500N is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 08:21
  #1179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by West Coast
He has spoken his peace regarding Syria
Was that "in our time"?

Sorry; couldn't resist it.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2013, 08:57
  #1180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 77
Posts: 4,118
500N, my point is that it is your decision as to whether the order you receive is legal or illegal and that almost certainly it will be deemed subsequently legal anyway.

As to the Belgrano, given that British territory had been invaded by Argentina it would seem that a de facto state of war existed, though of course no such declaration had been made. Given that its mere presence (and of its escorts) constituted a direct threat to our Forces, never mind Exclusion Zones or Headings, if I had received the order I would have obeyed it. Again, it's a personal decision, it's never easy, which is how it should be. It's called doing your duty, and it's what you're paid for.
Chugalug2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.