I mean, if the president, on behalf of his cronies, is demanding that the military do things that are unconstitutional.
2006-08-16 11:38:43 · 9 answers · asked by mutaali t 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I mean, grow up.
2006-08-16 11:44:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The military is supposed to be loyal to the constitution of the United States
2006-08-16 22:16:03 · answer #2 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question, that is precisely why the police and armed forces in Britain report to the reigning Monarch, to protect us from rogue governments with a large majority. Also the people need protecting from their own stupidity.
I don't fully understand the US set up, but I would be surprised if the Military reported directly to, and took instructions from, The President.
There would be no protection from a rogue President.
2006-08-17 12:21:51 · answer #3 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think constitution states the president is commander in chief. So military follows commander in chief.
This is one thing lawmakers are discussing now. It will be unfair for soldiers/intelligence offiders(CIA, NSA, FBI...etc) to be prosecuted for following commander in chief. So there are on going discussions on how to avoid those unfair prosecutions if the gov should change standards in how War on Terror should be carried out.
Plus expansion of presidential power has been in question for quite some time now as all those stories in news have shown.
2006-08-17 03:18:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the military, should be loyal to the constitution not to the president who is doing something immoral, against the people ,
2006-08-16 19:18:25 · answer #5 · answered by lepactodeloupes 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In England, the law was recently changed so that if your commanding officer orders you to do something illegal he can't be tried for it - but if you do it, you can.
This means that it is now in the best interest of troops to go along with orders and then cover it up, because the only people who face court martial are them.
Thats a very worrying precedent.
As for the States, I guess its who they swear their oath of alliegance to.
2006-08-16 18:47:08 · answer #6 · answered by sarah c 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Oath is to "protect and defend the CONSTITUTION from all enemies Foreign AND Domestic".
A soldier can refuse to obey and "unlawful order" and can request an order be put in writing.
Committing illegal acts "under color of authority" (pulling rank) is a courtmartial offense.
2006-08-16 18:54:39 · answer #7 · answered by jagfanantic 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they are supposed to be. In fact, officers can be charged under the UCMJ if they bad-mouth the president.
2006-08-16 18:45:35 · answer #8 · answered by nimo22 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
their commander in chief. soldiers take orders not dwell on their merit. besides, if they are asked to do something unconsitutional, who pays the price? the soldiers. all about covering your a*ss in the game of politics.
2006-08-16 18:44:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋