931
Donald Trump tells court he had no duty to ‘support’ the US Constitution
(www.the-independent.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
931 points (97.0% liked)
News
23367 readers
3552 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's about a dozen layers of nuance that need to be addressed before we advocate for all million or so military members to rise up against presidents (or congressional representatives, or judiciaries, or...)
The first of which is the definition of "enemy."
It's a huge fucking stretch to expect individual soldiers to be able to declare who is or is not an enemy when you're not under imminent danger or protecting any critical assets. Supervising officers largely do not make that decision, as they're focused on a specific near-term tasking set. Unit commanders largely do not make that decision, as they're focused on meshing tactical warfare requirements with the administrative and logistical burdens needed for a competent force. Even combatant commanders largely do not make that decision, as they fight for resources and posture their chess pieces to be able to respond in SHTF situations. The same way we do not expect US Naval ships facing harassment from Iranian rocket boats on a daily basis to decide that "today's the day" and start a war with Iran is how important this distinction is and why it's not an easy ask.
The military needs an actual order, coming from some combination of the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council in order to define enemies and engage in combat. Congress (should) officially declare enemies of the United States. There is some current debate on if the US needs to officially declare "enemies" in order to add gravity to some charges like treason, but my understanding is that China is no more an enemy of the US than Russia is. Another way of saying that is the US might not be friendly towards some, but is not willing to declare those countries as explicit enemies. It's hard to perform effective diplomacy with another entity if you've already announced that you cannot coexist peacefully.
Thus, expecting the military to rise up against a president is expecting them to jump every level in the chain of command and take on the impossible decision of deciding what's in the United States' best interest themselves. I think that's generally considered a shitty take.
Agreed, with literally everything you said. The 'shoulds' and expectations for our military as a whole don't really give way to what the oaths imply; but focusing specifically on the oaths, I stand by my earlier comment.
I was active duty enlisted when Trump took office, and his traitorous behavior became more glaring to me (and, y'know, the rest of the world) every time he opened his mouth. Found myself thinking about the oath a lot, in that for enlisted, Trump represented a paradox. Officially or not, he made himself a domestic threat to the constitution - the ONLY threat addressed specifically by the oath I had taken; but in the very next line, we swore to obey the orders of... the domestic threat to the constitution.
More of a thought experiment than anything else - I was a medic, that hypothetical was never going to be put to test for me lol.
But then I'd see footage of Trump hobbling past some Marine to descend a stair case or something, and I'd look at that Marine just standing there as he passed, and think "You fucking coward."
Not to say I'd have the balls to do any different - I wouldn't be too keen on getting shot by secret service, or spending the rest of my life in prison either; but still, failing to act in that situation is a violation of the oath.
For what it's worth, joining the military and serving contributes more to society than you probably think. The fact that you and your peers are able to have these discussions while performing your duties speaks volumes to how much the US military has improved over generations past. I have no doubts that any blatantly unlawful or unconstitutional orders coming down from the president wouldn't be met with pushback.
Yeah, people always talk about civil war 2.0 situations like "you think your six shooter is going to do shit against an air strike?!" like it would just unilaterally be the military + 'loyalists' vs the odd liberal that got lost one day and wandered into a gun store.
The military does lean red, but overall we're varied like any other slice of society. It's not going to be some "execute order 66!" situation with a bunch of stormtroopers just suddenly gunning down the people they work for/with.
Even in basic training they put a lot of emphasis on following LEGAL orders: had a class segment on the Nuremberg trials; showcased Hugh Thompson Jr. as a positive example of what to do when faced with illegal situations; shit like that. Contrary to popular media, the military does NOT want its troops to be a bunch of mindless drones.
It's also an appealing career field to violent sociopaths who struggle with things like obtaining a GED, so, y'know... grain of salt. Oh whoops, I already said it leans red - pardon the redundancy.