3 ms·
I would be a bit more tempered regarding the not following an order part. There’s long established cases in US law that doesn’t mean the person obeying the ord
by alextheparrot 6y ago
I would be a bit more tempered regarding the not following an order part. There’s long established cases in US law that doesn’t mean the person obeying the order is free, if the order was not lawful.
United States vs Keenan being one example — soldiers need to obey lawful orders, but obeying unlawful orders puts them at risk of criminal prosecution.
- billme 6y agoHence “likely” - it’s impossible to tell what might happen.
- montagg 6y agoThe point is that an order to siege an American city would not be unlawful, under the Insurrection Act, because there are parts of the Act that give a lot of discretion to the President about when to use force. That siege order could be legal. At that point, disobeying has to be a moral act, and the law isn’t a concern anymore. I say this living in an apartment about three blocks from a tank in Los Angeles.
- cryptonector 6y agoBy the way, the U.S. armed forces includes in its ranks a small army of lawyers. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily identify unlawful orders as such and refuse to comply. But it's something.