English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am not too familiar with the President's powers when it comes to the military, so please enlighten me. How much direct control over the military does the President have at any given time? I know that he holds the supreme title of "Commander-in-Chief", but I can't figure out what that actually means authority-wise. Let's say that the President was to issue orders to the army which are unconstitutional. Is the military bound to follow him, or can they actually defy him and refuse to carry out the orders?

2007-06-24 14:11:29 · 13 answers · asked by bcwhite88 3 in Politics & Government Military

13 answers

You can deny a unlawful order, but, if he issues it, and it is legal, you will be court marshaled for not following if you don't.
The Army does not go by rules that govern the non military people.

2007-06-24 14:16:25 · answer #1 · answered by Common Sense 5 · 2 0

For the military, the President is the "Supreme Commander." You can defy him, but you will spend the rest of your service in the brig and could be charged with treason.

The thing is, most members of the military do not get their orders from the President, because his orders are handed down to his Generals and, in a good situation, he would listen to them and take their advice about military matters.

The "grunt soldiers," or the ones in the field follow orders given to them by their immediate superiors. They very seldom refuse to follow these orders, because there is a great buddy system in the military and most soldiers feel a great loyalty to those on their team. No matter how war- weary they are, no matter how tired, no matter how grief-stricken at the loss of a buddy, they usually pull themselves together and stick to their jobs.

If our leaders did as well as our soldiers have done, there would be far fewer problems with this war.

2007-06-24 21:24:19 · answer #2 · answered by Me, Too 6 · 1 0

They do so at their own risk. Much like the civil war.

As a soldier you are taught to always do the right thing, even if you are "ordered" to.

Just following orders is not an excuse for example, for breaking the laws of war.

But you had better be darn sure of yourself when doing something like that.

As a soldier you have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. To be perfectly honest I am not sure where the constitution comes into play as far as lawful orders go, but I think the oath of enlistment means you swear to uphold the constitution.

2007-06-24 21:16:35 · answer #3 · answered by Nickoo 5 · 0 0

military law is called the U.C.M.J. or uniform code of military justice. and under the U.C.M.J. you are required to disobey any unlawful order, but you had better be sure of what you are doing if you do disobey an order. the punishment is severe if you're wrong. and in time of war you can be shot on the spot for disobeying a direct order (cowardice in the face of the enemy) or desertion. orders from the prez. are passed down through the "chain of command" there are many senior legal officers that see these orders to be sure they are legal before they are passed down the chain of command from the prez.

2007-06-24 21:48:08 · answer #4 · answered by b.douglaswyatt 3 · 0 0

after the mi lai massacre a the hearing that followed gave the conclusion that if an order is deemed unlawful In accordance with the uniform code of military justice a lower ranking person can refuse to follow it. sadly this tends to still have a negative effect on the person standing up in disobedience

2007-06-24 21:24:05 · answer #5 · answered by tuco 5 · 0 0

Soldiers take orders from the Generals. Generals take orders from the Congress and the President. Generals generally speaking have 25+ years of service, and as lifetime Officers are used to running thing themselves. That's why General Abizaid of "Heartbreak Ridge" fame, and as the command of CENTOM until March of this year, always went to the Congress and asked to just let the Military, manage the conflict, and keep Congress out.

See, we have to remember what Clemensau once said about war. He said War is too important to be left to the Generals, and when he said that, 200 years ago, he might have been right. But today? War is too important to be left to politicians, they have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.

2007-06-24 21:17:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The president is just what you said and he has finial authority over the military. If the military choose to disobey the president then they better overthrow the whole government because that will be court marshaled for mutiny and imprisoned. It is a very high offense to disobey an Oder from the pres.(I'm retired military).

2007-06-24 21:19:22 · answer #7 · answered by roy40371 4 · 0 1

If the order is unconstitutional they can defy it although they could end up court martialed and jailed I guess it would depend on the severity of refusal and the order

2007-06-24 21:17:52 · answer #8 · answered by ja man 5 · 0 0

he has less power than everyone tries to act like. he can send troops to a place for a period of 90 days i think it is (may be shorter/longer) then congress has control of if they come home or stay longer..
then the generals who are in charge have the control over the army.
the president and generals are really just a political thing now though..

2007-06-25 01:00:46 · answer #9 · answered by johnjohn_9_21_03 2 · 0 0

The President makes the ultimate decisions. The Joint Chiefs of Staff meet with him for policy and stratagy discussions on a regular basis. They inform him of situtational intel and make recommendations based on info about the status of troops and political ramifications, ect.... The final decision is the President's though as to how to proceed.

2007-06-24 21:16:30 · answer #10 · answered by booman17 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers