3 ms·

Probably not, but there would definitely be some sort of resistance, strikes, refusal to comply, etc. In France public service employees have a very high level

by byroot 2y ago

Probably not, but there would definitely be some sort of resistance, strikes, refusal to comply, etc. In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, I suppose this case would qualify? All of this was implemented immediately after WW2 as a way to prevent a potential authoritarian ruler from using public administrations for nefarious things. So it seems quite fitting.

code_runner 2y ago
I assume that federal employees are also allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, but I suppose the difference is that they can be retaliated against. Its odd that the president can act out of his authority and make orders that illegal, but still be able to fire the people who won't do those things. In the case of USAID workers, its entirely possible that the organization will be explicitly NOT under executive authority (my understanding is that they are a legislative branch creation).... but I guess the executive branch can still order them to stop working and return to the US? Its all very murky
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders This would seem to imply that a French public servant who obeys an "obviously illegal" order is both knowingly (it's obvious) and willfully (there's no requirement to obey) breaking the law. What are the penalties for that?
- byroot 2y ago
  > knowingly (it's obvious) The term used in French isn't quite as strong as "obviously", it's "manifestement illegal". See Wordreference: https://www.wordreference.com/fren/manifestement https://www.wordreference.com/fren/manifestement . Apparently English has "manifestly" but I never heard it so unsure if it's a good translation. > What are the penalties for that? I had to look it up, it seems you're considered complicit in whatever the order was about. Basically the "Nuremberg defense" AKA "I just followed orders" is void here.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Thanks for the response. "Manifestly" seems fine as a translation, though in English I would consider it to be about equally as strong as "obvious", or possibly stronger because it's an unusual, formal-sounding word that might suggest you're trying to sound emphatic. crowdsourced wiktionary ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manifestly https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manifestly ): > In a manifest manner; obviously. curated Merriam-Webster (the standard dictionary of American English; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestly https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestly ): > easily understood or recognized by the mind : obvious
- px1999 2y ago
  devoir de désobéissance is _duty_ of disobedience. If they choose to follow orders they know are illegal they can be personally liable.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by byroot 2y ago

code_runner 2y ago

I assume that federal employees are also allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders, but I suppose the difference is that they can be retaliated against. Its odd that the president can act out of his authority and make orders that illegal, but still be able to fire the people who won't do those things. In the case of USAID workers, its entirely possible that the organization will be explicitly NOT under executive authority (my understanding is that they are a legislative branch creation).... but I guess the executive branch can still order them to stop working and return to the US? Its all very murky

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> In France public service employees have a very high level of protection (they're very hard to fire), and are legally allowed to disobey "obviously illegal" orders This would seem to imply that a French public servant who obeys an "obviously illegal" order is both knowingly (it's obvious) and willfully (there's no requirement to obey) breaking the law. What are the penalties for that?

byroot 2y ago
> knowingly (it's obvious) The term used in French isn't quite as strong as "obviously", it's "manifestement illegal". See Wordreference: https://www.wordreference.com/fren/manifestement https://www.wordreference.com/fren/manifestement . Apparently English has "manifestly" but I never heard it so unsure if it's a good translation. > What are the penalties for that? I had to look it up, it seems you're considered complicit in whatever the order was about. Basically the "Nuremberg defense" AKA "I just followed orders" is void here.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  Thanks for the response. "Manifestly" seems fine as a translation, though in English I would consider it to be about equally as strong as "obvious", or possibly stronger because it's an unusual, formal-sounding word that might suggest you're trying to sound emphatic. crowdsourced wiktionary ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manifestly https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manifestly ): > In a manifest manner; obviously. curated Merriam-Webster (the standard dictionary of American English; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestly https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestly ): > easily understood or recognized by the mind : obvious
px1999 2y ago
devoir de désobéissance is _duty_ of disobedience. If they choose to follow orders they know are illegal they can be personally liable.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]