Don't forget ... people don't have to follow unlawful orders. This was re-enforced at Nuremberg Trials.

 

I hear about the same from other sources during the Clinton Presidency. https://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Compromised-Americas/dp/0895260603 has a book written by the Officer who carried the nuclear football. His observation was contempt from the White House Staff, and that can only happen with approval of the President or the First Lady (she also had a staff).

You can also read the comments here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1029337/posts

I also have talked with a small handful of people that worked close to Clinton and they have unanimously conveyed the deep level of contempt that both Clintons held for the military as well as their own Secret Service agents.

 

Don't forget ... people don't have to follow unlawful orders. This was re-enforced at Nuremberg Trials.

Not only do they not have to follow them, but they are obligated to refuse to follow them and are under no protection by claiming that they were just following orders if they do.

 

Not only do they not have to follow them, but they are obligated to refuse to follow them and are under no protection by claiming that they were just following orders if they do.

Another job I'm glad I don't have!

 

Yes and no. A presidential launch order must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense, but technically the SecDef does not have the authority to veto the order; they are required to simply confirm that the order actually did initiate with the President. In practice, of course, the SecDef has the option to refuse to confirm the order if they believe it to be unlawful -- at which point the President has the right to demand the immediate resignation of the SecDef, but I don't think that the SecDef is required to actually render it since, unlike the President's staff, the SecDef's appointment is confirmed by the Senate and, IIRC, they therefore do not serve "at the pleasure of the President".

Unfortunately, the nuclear controls only concern themselves with the validity of a launch order in terms of establishing that it originated from the National Command Authority and NOT with establishing that the NCA's launch order was lawful. Below that level there are several controls aimed at physically preventing any one person (or in most cases even two people acting in concert) from initiating a launch. The philosophy behind this dichotomy is that, in the scenario of a fast-escalating nuclear threat, that the decision to launch and the window in which to issue that launch order might be extremely brief (possibly measured in minutes), so there can't be any steps in the process that might prevent the order from being carried out, which limits the checks to verifying that the order actually originated with the NCA. But at the other end there are sufficient redundant weapons that safeguards against rogue elements can be put in place because while they might prevent some weapons from being released, it is highly unlikely that they will prevent enough weapons from being released to carry out the intended strike.

There was even a missileer that was discharged because he specifically asked whether there was any check in place to ensure than a launch order came from a sane president. The Board of Inquiry that heard his appeal determined that that was outside of his need to know in order to carry out his authenticated orders.

Having said that, all members of the military have an obligation to refuse to obey illegal orders -- but they don't have the right to arbitrarily question the legality of any order that comes along. It's a tightrope they walk and pits several things against each other, both legal and moral. But while an officer in a silo or on a sub is not in a position to question the legality of a launch order, others are -- in particular, the officer carrying the football. By the nature of his job he is in a position to reasonably conclude that an attempt by the President (or their successor) to initiate a launch constitutes an illegal order and to refuse to comply with it and even to actively take steps to prevent the order from being carried out. They would, of course, be buying themselves a court martial in the process, but it would depend on the facts of the case as to whether they would be convicted.

Wbahn your post reminds me how I've always thought that since a US president's most vital responsibility is national defense it's just INSANE that civilians are eligible for office! IMO only high ranking commissioned officers, preferably with combat experience, should qualify to run! I know some ppl have problems with that cuz of separation of powers and all but I say it's little enough to expect that commander in chief is a trained and experienced commander!

 

IMO only high ranking commissioned officers, preferably with combat experience, should qualify to run!

So we'll have to fight a war every 30-years to be sure we have an inventory of eligible candidates.

 

IMO only high ranking commissioned officers, preferably with combat experience, should qualify to run!

I disagree, very strongly. The military mindset is to attack until the threat (of survival) is eliminated.
Identify, attack, eliminate.
If the military ran the country, we would have nuked Cuba in 1962, and our planet would be a pile of ashes.
JFK saved the entire planet from his military advisors.

 

So we'll have to fight a war every 30-years to be sure we have an inventory of eligible candidates.

I don't foresee any difficulty achieving that.

 

I don't foresee any difficulty achieving that.

There were a few good stretches - the best stretch appears to have been interrupted by a civil war.

 

I hear about the same from other sources during the Clinton Presidency. https://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Compromised-Americas/dp/0895260603 has a book written by the Officer who carried the nuclear football. His observation was contempt from the White House Staff, and that can only happen with approval of the President or the First Lady (she also had a staff).

You can also read the comments here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1029337/posts

People that write books or quote unnamed sources often don't provide good information.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/secretservice.asp

 

So we'll have to fight a war every 30-years to be sure we have an inventory of eligible candidates.

Gophert that's why I said _preferably_ (as in _if possible_) with combat experience

I disagree, very strongly. The military mindset is to attack until the threat (of survival) is eliminated.
Identify, attack, eliminate.
If the military ran the country, we would have nuked Cuba in 1962, and our planet would be a pile of ashes.
JFK saved the entire planet from his military advisors.

#12 that's way b4 my time but I say there would have been no Cuban crisis if US had competent leadership cuz US would not have provoked Soviets by putting weapons on their boarders in first place AND Soviets would have thought twice b4 provoking a country unequivocally ready willing and able to deploy its weapons! I say all weapons whether nuclear arsenal or just handgun have something in common and that's that its unless even for deterrent if proprietor is unwilling or afraid to use it! Maybe that's why we seldom hear of attacks on Russian, Chinese or N. Korean homeland or citizens by Mideastern terrorists! Better to lay dead on a planet turned into an ashtray than be a slave in the garden of Eden! BTW If you knew me personally you'd know that despite young age I'm not out of touch with reality about asperities of warfare!

 

Snopes is no longer a valid source, if they ever were.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...act-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/
http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/

 

Snopes is no longer a valid source, if they ever were.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/f...act-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/
http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/

Ooh, those ARE some Good sources!

If this is such a "fact" about Hillary, why are there no first-hand accounts of secret service if she was so bad. Don't claim they have a code because there have been statements from all other organizations with a code too, rangers,, seals, nsa, fbi and many more. Show me a fact.

 

Identify, attack, eliminate.

#12 you're making me confused cuz I thought it was _identify clarify and classify_

 

Ooh, those ARE some Good sources!

If this is such a "fact" about Hillary, why are there no first-hand accounts of secret service if she was so bad. Don't claim they have a code because there have been statements from all other organizations with a code too, rangers,, seals, nsa, fbi and many more. Show me a fact.

Gophert IIRC a secret service agent assigned Clintons during WJCs administration wrote a book on his experiences? Anyway I don't have details to cite but my bad memory is just disinterest instead of convenient concussion Being serious it should be easy to find book with Google

 

Gophert IIRC a secret service agent assigned Clintons during WJCs administration wrote a book on his experiences? Anyway I don't have details to cite but my bad memory is just disinterest instead of convenient concussion Being serious it should be easy to find book with Google

Why did you bother to post that? There are a bunch of flimsy weak memories of something that doesn't sound vaguely familiar. It would have been faster to google it and post the result.

 

Why did you bother to post that? There are a bunch of flimsy weak memories of something that doesn't sound vaguely familiar. It would have been faster to google it and post the result.

Did you see part of my post abt disinterest?

But @GopherT you got me fair and square cuz if I'm going to post I should at least make an effort to cite! So Just googling it looks like book might be "Crisis of Character" by Gary Byrne?

 

Wbahn your post reminds me how I've always thought that since a US president's most vital responsibility is national defense it's just INSANE that civilians are eligible for office! IMO only high ranking commissioned officers, preferably with combat experience, should qualify to run! I know some ppl have problems with that cuz of separation of powers and all but I say it's little enough to expect that commander in chief is a trained and experienced commander!

My personal preference for people in the presidency would be full multi discipline engineering degrees.

Politicians like to lie, cheat and steal for power.
Lawyers like to litigate without concern for rational reasoning.
Military are paranoid and on the defensive even when it not justified.
Businessmen like to acquire and control as much as they can.
Engineers like things to be rational, logical and well thought out and oppose all that is not.

 

Engineers like things to be rational, logical and well thought out and oppose all that is not.

Yes, every five years we can make a plan and then implement the plan. I'm sure it will work really well.

 

there would have been no Cuban crisis if US had

You just agreed that the military mindset caused the problem.

Better to lay dead on a planet turned into an ashtray than be a slave in the garden of Eden!

That eliminates you as the next presidential candidate.
Exterminating the human race is not an option in my book.