Close
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Zombie Slayer Aloha_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    6,572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rucker61 View Post
    Since when do military commanders expect to disobey orders of their superiors and get away with it? Was it an act of moral courage? I expect so. Can we let our military leaders get away with these types of actions? Not according to the oath we all took. Note that we don't have all of the information regarding the situation. But feel free to think so.
    “I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
    Nothing in there about orders. The phrase "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" is in the Oath of Enlistment, not Oath of Office.

    Military commanders are taught to obey all legal orders -- and to question unethical ones. In fact, disobeying an immoral order is something that is covered repeatedly in Professional Military Education although students are also taught to be prepared to suffer the consequences of such disobedience.

    PME case studies frequently point out the problem with not having complete information and seemingly-suicidal orders may in fact be necessary for the greater good and to save more lives than are being sacrificed so there aren't any stock answers. At this moment, I can't fathom any set of information that would justify abandoning the ambassador or other Americans under the publicly available information so far.

    The problem WE have is that we don't have all the information so we don't know why the admiral was removed from command and the firing of Gen Ham is simply unsupported speculation so far. The caller in this case is providing additional information that make it more plausible (but not certain) someone may have been removed because he decided to an order to abandon US citizens was immoral and potentially illegal.

    Having said all that, I'm astounded at your readiness to defend an order to abandon fellow Americans in an attack like this.
    Last edited by Aloha_Shooter; 11-01-2012 at 22:40.

  2. #2
    Machine Gunner USAFGopherMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    San Angelo, TX
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter View Post
    Nothing in there about orders. The phrase "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" is in the Oath of Enlistment, not Oath of Office.

    Military commanders are taught to obey all legal orders -- and to question unethical ones. In fact, disobeying an immoral order is something that is covered repeatedly in Professional Military Education although students are also taught to be prepared to suffer the consequences of such disobedience.

    PME case studies frequently point out the problem with not having complete information and seemingly-suicidal orders may in fact be necessary for the greater good and to save more lives than are being sacrificed so there aren't any stock answers. At this moment, I can't fathom any set of information that would justify abandoning the ambassador or other Americans under the publicly available information so far.

    The problem WE have is that we don't have all the information so we don't know why the admiral was removed from command and the firing of Gen Ham is simply unsupported speculation so far. The caller in this case is providing additional information that make it more plausible (but not certain) someone may have been removed because he decided to an order to abandon US citizens was immoral and potentially illegal.

    Having said all that, your readiness to defend an order to abandon fellow Americans in an attack like this leads me to believe you made the right decision to separate.
    ^ This is the most credible post in this thread. That said... The whole situation stinks of coverup. If you don't think that the administration and MSM is purposely avoiding it and giving it little consideration because of the election, you're an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote, own a gun, or drive because you're a hazard to yourself and others around you, not to mention the gene pool. Knowing how these things work, we're going to have to wait for these to General Officers to retire before we'll get the truth, and even then, it may never happen. CNN is running some bullshit story that an unnamed CIA spokesperson told them there was never a standdown order. If that were true, why were the two G.O.s releved?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •