[HN Gopher] When Not to Obey Orders (2019)
___________________________________________________________________
When Not to Obey Orders (2019)
Author : throwaway19577
Score : 260 points
Date : 2025-02-16 20:18 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (warontherocks.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (warontherocks.com)
| pstuart wrote:
| This is one of many concerns. Any party loyalty should be trumped
| by loyalty to the country.
| yMEyUyNE1 wrote:
| Mark Twain -- 'Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to
| government, when it deserves it.'
|
| In democracy government is for the country/people and not the
| other way round.
| ars wrote:
| Trump thinks the same way. So far he has not disobeyed court
| orders, but if he does he will do so for the same reason you
| would disobey him: because he thinks he's doing right for the
| country.
|
| That's the thing, everyone who disobeys thinks they're doing
| the right thing.
| daveguy wrote:
| Trump has never done anything for anyone over doing what's
| right for himself.
| leptons wrote:
| Nothing he is doing or will do is being done because it is
| "right for the country". He is purposely trying to
| destabilize America so that he can rule as a king over the
| ashes.
| fads_go wrote:
| > So far he has not disobeyed court orders,
|
| Actually, yes he has. The courts have ordered funds released,
| he has not complied.
|
| And he has publicly attacked the courts for trying to stop
| him.
|
| You may believe that he is right to disobey the court, and
| I'd be much happier if his defenders were honest enough to
| actually look at facts
|
| Here are some stories on Fox News showing that trump isn't
| complying. Note the source. Fox isn't known as a haven of
| liberals.
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-
| appeal...
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-100-disagrees-
| federal...
| pstuart wrote:
| "L'Etat, c'est moi" -- Louis XIV, King of France
|
| Translation: "I am the state"
|
| History is a fascinating subject, you should read up on how
| his reign played out.
| jemmyw wrote:
| This is a good article and it's not just about the new
| administration threatening to use the US military against US
| citizens, it's also and perhaps more about all recent
| administrations putting personnel into unwinnable and dangerous
| situations because they won't resource it sufficiently. Why put
| lives on the line for political desires you know cannot be
| achieved by politicians who refuse to listen?
| solidsnack9000 wrote:
| I wonder how widely this question is asked.
| paulsutter wrote:
| Wait, who is threatening to use the US military against US
| citizens?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The current president has previously spoken of it multiple
| times [0, 1] and has already authorized domestic military
| deployments, albeit not against citizens [2].
|
| [0] https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-military-
| enemy...
|
| [1]
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/24/trump-
| mi...
|
| [2] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/27/here-are-
| all-...
| pjc50 wrote:
| The flagged subthread doing some whataboutery with drone
| strikes actually has a point that is relevant here; the War
| on Terror provided an erosion of rule of law, both in terms
| of normalized militarisation of society and in keeping places
| like Guantanamo Bay (US territory where US law basically
| doesn't apply) open.
|
| The threatened immigration sweeps and the talk of removing
| birthright citizenship tie into this. If the troops are
| reluctant to be deployed against US citizens, simply make the
| people you want to deploy them against not US citizens any
| more.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Yeah this is my fear -- when we remove birthright
| citizenship, then suddenly you have to prove that your
| bloodline back to the Nth degree were citizens, or you have
| to prove yourself by some other way. So if someone or some
| group disagrees with what he is doing, he can simply add a
| requirement for citizenship that they can't meet and then
| they're not citizens.
|
| The whole point of birthright citizenship is to create a
| clear, unambiguous means of testing if someone is a citizen
| so that people cannot be disenfranchised easily even by a
| hostile executive. If you can produce a birth certificate,
| you are a citizen end of discussion. As someone who
| disagrees with what is happening, my biggest fear is that
| myself, my son, or my family could be declared "not a
| citizen" and forcibly removed to some other country where
| we are also not citizens under a new system. This is not a
| good thing for the US.
| leptons wrote:
| HR22, the "SAVE act" is removing the birth certificate
| from viable documents for millions of people who have
| changed their names. If the person who changed their name
| does not get an updated birth certificate (most don't,
| like women after they marry and take their husbands last
| name), then they can no longer vote. This is many
| millions of regular naturally born citizens in the US.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr22/BILLS-119hr22ih.p
| df
| ipython wrote:
| He came damn close in his first term. I remember watching the
| Twitter video on June 1, 2020 - see the video:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-helicopters-hover-low-
| ov... to see how low the helicopters were flying and the
| rotor wash was clearly intended to intimidate the protesters.
|
| https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/let-the-generals-speak-
| ret...
|
| > In May 2020, protests emerged in the aftermath of the
| killing of George Floyd by a white police officer, as well as
| other incidents of police brutality against African
| Americans. In these protests there was in some cases
| significant property destruction and looting. In response,
| more than 20 states and the District of Columbia activated
| the National Guard to assist in stabilizing the situation.
|
| > By June 1 Trump was reportedly _ready to send 10,000
| regular military troops to the streets_ -- forces usually
| used in external conflict. _He threatened to invoke the
| Insurrection Act_ , which would have allowed him to deploy
| the troops without the governors' permission. _Active-duty
| troops were brought to the Washington, D.C., area, including
| some from the immediate response force brigade of the Army's
| 82nd Airborne Division._ For a few days it looked like Trump
| might send in the troops, precipitating the retired officer
| commentary detailed below. _Ultimately the president did not
| invoke the Insurrection Act and the troops were sent home._
|
| It wasn't just Trump:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-
| protes...
|
| https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2020/10/helicopters-
| over-d...
|
| https://media.defense.gov/2021/May/27/2002730396/-1/-1/1/DOD.
| ..
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soldiers-disciplined-
| helicop...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230607212142/https://casebook..
| ..
|
| https://www.usnews.com/news/national-
| news/articles/2020-06-0...
| matwood wrote:
| > Why put lives on the line for political desires you know
| cannot be achieved by politicians who refuse to listen?
|
| If the US and Russia negotiate a treaty in Ukraine without
| Ukraine or the EUs agreement, we could end up in a situation
| with US troops squaring off against EU/Ukraine military in
| order to enforce the treaty. Feels like everyone loses except
| maybe Russia.
| Animats wrote:
| The author of that has been at the sharp end and has been a
| senior commander.
|
| There are two kinds of expected disobedience to orders in the US
| military. One is disobeying an illegal order, such as one to
| shoot prisoners. The other is doing what needs to be done to
| accomplish the mission despite conflicting orders. The second is
| why military orders have a "Commander's Intent" section. If the
| situation on the ground is not what was expected when the order
| was give, officers are _expected_ to adapt to the new situation
| and overcome problems. Here 's Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley
| writing about that back in 2017.[1] That was not about the moral
| issue, but the operational issues when command is messed up.
|
| Milley faced the moral issue when he was Chairman of the Joint
| Chiefs of Staff and Trump lost the election.
|
| Here's the US officer's oath:
|
| _" I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
| defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
| foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
| to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
| mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
| and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
| about to enter. So help me God."_
|
| German military oath, before Hitler:
|
| _" I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to ever loyally
| and sincerely serve my people and fatherland and be prepared as a
| brave and obedient soldier to risk my life for this oath at any
| time."_
|
| After Hitler:
|
| _" I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render
| unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and
| people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, and
| that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give
| my life for this oath."_
|
| [1]
| https://www.army.mil/article/187293/future_warfare_requires_...
| elygre wrote:
| I assume that the paragraph called <<after hitler>> is more
| appropriately called <<during hitler>> or similar.
|
| Do you know what the current path is on Germany? (I don't,
| honest question!)
|
| (Edited typo)
| Tomte wrote:
| ,,Ich schwore, der Bundesrepublik Deutschland treu zu dienen
| und das Recht und die Freiheit des deutschen Volkes tapfer zu
| verteidigen, so wahr mir Gott helfe."
|
| I swear to serve the Federal Republic of Germany faithfully
| and to bravely defend the rights and freedom of the German
| people, so help me God."
| ninalanyon wrote:
| No mention of 'obey' in the German one.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > I assume that the paragraph called <<after hitler>> is more
| appropriately called <<during hitler>> or similar.
|
| What? Why would they change it? ;D
|
| On a more serious note, swearing allegiance to someone who's
| not alive isn't really much of an issue; it's basically the
| same thing as the US oath to "the Constitution".
| gadders wrote:
| >>Milley faced the moral issue when he was Chairman of the
| Joint Chiefs of Staff and Trump lost the election
|
| And sadly he failed the test.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _And sadly he failed the test._
|
| Perhaps less than you think:
|
| https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch.
| ..
| sigzero wrote:
| No, he 100% failed the test.
| michaelt wrote:
| Well yes, clearly in terms of supporting and defending
| the Constitution, the military should have shown up to
| defend the capitol in far more timely manner.
|
| But honestly, as a foreigner I was just glad the military
| didn't come down on the side of Trump. As I understand it
| the leaders of the military are appointed by the
| president, people in the military love guns and gun
| rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide margin [1]
| even following Jan 6th.
|
| [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2024/09/30/military-...
| jeffrallen wrote:
| The leaders of the American military love the
| constitution, and one relatively small thing on it is gun
| rights.
| michaelt wrote:
| Sure - the gun rights stuff is just me saying it makes
| sense why the military could skew Republican. The linked
| survey saying veterans are 61% pro-Trump vs 37% pro-
| Harris sounds plausible.
|
| Loving the constitution is all very well, but Republican
| voters and senators seem to manage to square that with
| supporting Trump. Makes no sense to me, but apparently to
| 50% of the American population it does.
|
| So IMHO the military _could_ plausibly have backed a
| Trump coup, if the coup had been better planned. And I
| was glad when they didn 't!
| gadders wrote:
| >>So IMHO the military could plausibly have backed a
| Trump coup, if the coup had been better planned.
|
| Or the coup had even, like, existed.
| michaelt wrote:
| There's that love of the constitution squared with
| supporting Trump that I was mentioning.
| rob74 wrote:
| Trump intended to stay in power although he lost the
| election. As long as we agree on that, I don't see how
| you could not call it a coup. It only failed because
| there still were some people with a backbone around,
| among them Mike Pence. There are fewer of them this time.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| > As I understand it the leaders of the military are
| appointed by the president, people in the military love
| guns and gun rights, and veterans are pro-Trump by a wide
| margin [1] even following Jan 6th.
|
| This is a caricature that is as broad-brushed and
| offensive as claiming gay men all flounce around in
| assless chaps, and I say that with 20 years active and
| reserve service. Even in that poll (which I am curious
| about their methodology), 40% of veterans supported
| Harris, and my experience is that the military is a
| cross-section of society. I'm deeply skeptical that the
| modern military is as skewed towards one party as this
| poll would indicate. I highly suspect it is being skewed
| by either bad methodology or else by including a bunch of
| older veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf
| War, who would skew Republican. The military I served in
| was a diverse cross-section of broadly middle-class
| American society.
|
| And the leaders of the military are commissioned officers
| who are formally appointed by the President, but their
| oath is to the Constitution. And military leaders have
| served through bipartisan administrations . . . my own
| service was under W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, and
| today's senior leaders also would have served under
| Clinton and possibly H. W. Bush. There is no MAGA cabal
| in military senior leadership; the opposite if anything.
|
| And just because someone "loves guns and gun rights"
| doesn't automatically put them in the MAGA column.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| >and offensive as claiming gay men all flounce around in
| assless chaps
|
| I agree they are painting with a broad and inaccurate
| brush but to compare it to the stereotypes queer people
| have to endure, especially in the current social/cultural
| moment playing out in the US, is honestly far more
| offensive IMO. Those two situations are not on the same
| playing field. People in the armed forces (who aren't
| LGBT) do not know what it's like at all to be judged like
| the queer community.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| The point isn't to belittle or minimize discrimination
| against LGBT people. The point is to try to get someone
| who presumably supports LGBT rights to understand how it
| comes across to still make prejudiced remarks against
| other groups of people by comparing it to another well-
| worn and offensive stereotype.
| michaelt wrote:
| Some other surveys have produced some weird patterns,
| like [1] which said men in the military were Republican
| by roughly a 2:1 margin, while women in the military were
| Democrat by roughly a 2:1 margin - but there are a lot
| more men than women in the military.
|
| And [2] says, in an analysis of voting precincts that map
| closely onto military bases, _" On average, Mr Trump
| still won these precincts, though his margin shrank by
| nearly half. Patrick Air Force Base--located on Florida's
| Atlantic coast and since renamed Patrick Space Force Base
| --supported Mr Trump by a 17-point margin in 2016. By
| 2020, his lead there shrank to 11 points."_
|
| So it may be more even among active duty military than
| among veterans, but an 11 point margin is still a win.
| Expecting that in a brawl they'd come out swinging on the
| Democrat side to me seemed naive, which is why them
| staying out of it seemed better than nothing.
|
| [1] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-
| congress/2018/10... [2]
| https://archive.is/v6qOf#selection-1067.0-1069.342
| michaelt wrote:
| And here's the US Army oath of enlistment
| https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html
|
| _> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
| support and defend the Constitution of the United States
| against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
| true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the
| orders of the President of the United States and the orders of
| the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and
| the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."_
|
| Note that the enlisted soldiers' oath includes _" I will obey
| the orders of the President of the United States"_ which the
| officers' oath doesn't.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| That is because commissioned officers are especially
| responsible for upholding the Constitution as opposed to
| swearing an oath to one person or a group of people.
| tehjoker wrote:
| There's a possibility a free officers' movement would be good for
| the US, but I'm not banking on it.
|
| The Carnation Revolution in Portugal overthrew the fascist
| government there and ushered in an improved though not perfect
| political system.
|
| https://portuguesemuseum.org/?page_id=1808&exhibit=31&event=...
|
| https://jacobin.com/2019/04/portugal-carnation-revolution-na...
|
| I don't really have great faith that there is a set of left
| leaning military officers in the U.S. though.
|
| Anyway, interesting article. It always striking to me just how
| significant the military is in formulating policy. There is a
| strong tension there that is often not acknowledged. Good to see
| people wrestling with it.
| eigart wrote:
| They don't need to be left leaning.
| cess11 wrote:
| Are you sure about that?
| eigart wrote:
| You can never be sure, but I don't think support for
| Trump's regime is a left/right issue.
| cess11 wrote:
| Why?
| eigart wrote:
| I didn't say it was balanced. But look at what happened
| at SDNY last week. Several conservative prosecutors went
| against the DOJ.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| It shouldn't be, but unfortunately it is, with only a few
| exceptions.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| If you read up-page in some of the other threads you'll
| find some right/libetarian people who are also against
| Trump because of how he's pushing us into
| authoritarianism.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Yes, right libertarians often oppose right
| authoritarianism, but that doesn't transform support or
| opposition to right authoritarianism to something that
| has no left/right valence.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Good for them on actually paying attention to their
| principles. The overall alignment is still quite clear,
| though.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "Left/right" is always at best an approximation, because
| the space of political ideology is multidimensional, and
| because differences in praxis (how to achieve the goals
| set by ideology) will often be as signficant in people's
| support for or opposition to concrete regimes as
| differences in ideology, but the Trump regime definitely
| is suppported much more on the right and opposed much
| more on the left.
| tehjoker wrote:
| fwiw my comment was not solely about trump, the parties
| are both undemocratic and do not serve the people
| marcosdumay wrote:
| We've had 2 military coups in Brazil that immediately
| implemented a constitutional government and called elections.
| (One was against an autocratic constitutional monarchy... go
| figure... but it was on the direction of more democracy so it
| counts.)
|
| In a total of 5 military coups if I'm not forgetting any...
|
| I have a theory, that the military are only interested enough
| on democracy after they come back from fighting against some
| dictatorship. Otherwise they are bad news.
| tehjoker wrote:
| What you say makes a lot of sense. The carnation revolution
| happened when officers in portugal had been to the colonies
| and started learning from the people they were colonizing.
| jmward01 wrote:
| The article leans heavily on the word disobedience, but I think
| it would serve discussion more to emphasize the idea of a 'grey
| area' to distinguish it better from out-right disobedience. When
| the author was in tactical command of forces and made decisions
| to use resources or take actions contrary to stated orders there
| could have been an argument that the assumptions those orders
| were given under were found to be wrong and that adapting was
| crucial to achieving the stated commander's objectives. That
| would be different than disobeying the order to cover 'USS John
| S. McCain' when Trump was visiting. No matter how despicable that
| order was, it was clear that the commander's intent and
| objectives were being achieved by doing that and that it was a
| lawful order so to not carry it out would be outright
| disobedience and not a defensible grey area. Or to put it another
| way, I highly doubt the author would have lasted more than 1
| second after they said 'no' had they been C7F or any of the CO's
| in the chain that got the order and passed it on when it came
| out.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Well yea, they teach you in officer's schools that disobeying
| an illegal order probably won't turn out well for you
| immediately, but it's your duty. You will get punished
| sometimes, but if the order goes against the law and your
| morals, then you have to disobey it. Covering the McCain ship
| name probably isn't worth disobeying, but firing on civilians
| is definitely worth any cost to yourself to disobey.
| Digit-Al wrote:
| Interesting. This goes some way to addressing an issue I had been
| wondering about recently. I am a UK citizen, not US, so have
| little familiarity with US military. With the recent news on
| Trump declaring that Greenland should belong to the US I was
| wondering what the US military would do if ordered to carry out
| an unprovoked attack on an allied nation. This does seem to
| suggest that there is a very real possibility that they could
| refuse.
| jdsalaro wrote:
| > This does seem to suggest that there is a very real
| possibility that they could refuse.
|
| Not at all, on a societal level the US has been increasingly
| constructed as a huge, intricate, Prisoner's Dilemma where
| everyone, allegedly, has all to lose and noone, allegedly, has
| a say in the matter, therefore everyone complies with whatever
| the system, or media, asks of them.
|
| Everyone thinks they're the victim, everyone thinks civic duty
| is something the oppressor is responsible for, not them
| personally, therefore everyone is free to be an oppressor
| themselves.
|
| This problem will be intensified whenever, as we've seen
| elsewhere, the military starts being transformed from within
| and sycophants are put in positions of power.
| Validark wrote:
| This seems like a very interesting comment, if only I could
| make sense of it. Could you elaborate and/or give examples of
| what you're describing?
| thq123127 wrote:
| There is freedom of speech or freedom to disobey on paper.
| But most people cannot use these, because the system is set
| up so that they'll be fired, disgraced and probably barred
| from future jobs.
|
| It is fine and encouraged to say "Trump is an idiot" or
| "Harris is an idiot", but better think twice before
| engaging with actual issues like whistleblowing or
| disobeying an unlawful order.
|
| Just watch how topics of poor white MAGA voters who are
| being sold out are avoided and flagged on all sides. No one
| wants to hear about that. People like Bannon (a
| millionaire) can make some performative speeches, but
| nothing will happen.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| > Just watch how topics of poor white MAGA voters who are
| being sold out are avoided and flagged on all sides. No
| one wants to hear about that.
|
| What are you talking about here? Please share more about
| this.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| An unprovoked invasion of a foreign country is a legal order.
| breckenedge wrote:
| No, congress would have to declare war first. Article I,
| Section 8.
| modzu wrote:
| take note of the last 20 years. special military operation.
| breckenedge wrote:
| It would still require congressional approval after 60
| days, unless Al Qaida suddenly showed up in Greenland.
| Despite congress being majority R, I just don't see them
| playing along with this.
|
| Trump says these things to get a rise out of people. He's
| fueled by reaction. You can't tell if he's ever being
| serious, and I doubt even he knows if he's being serious
| most of the time. Getting enraged by his actions is his
| goal, and he's very good at playing his opponents into
| blunders this way. Best to not play along.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It would still require congressional approval after 60
| days
|
| "After 60 days" is very different from "first".
|
| And, since the President can unilaterally extend the
| timeline by 30 days, its actually 90 days, even if the
| War Powers Act is valid (an unresolved Constitutional
| question.)
|
| And, in practice, it doesn't even require that if you
| don't have _active_ majorities in Congress opposing the
| action; see the NATO-Yugoslavia war and the failure of
| legal challenges by members of Congress against it
| predicated on the War Powers Act limitations, because of
| lack of standing.
| pphysch wrote:
| > unless Al Qaida suddenly showed up in Greenland
|
| If invading Greenland was an actual real goal, something
| like this would definitely "happen", to manufacture the
| necessary pretext. Way cheaper than the alternatives.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > No, congress would have to declare war first. Article I,
| Section 8.
|
| Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the sole power to
| declare war, it does not, on its own, prohibit any other
| action than "declaring war" to any other actor.
|
| The War Powers Act (or Resolution) attempts to put some
| additional rules around this (note that it is widely seen
| as being either an unconstitutional intrusion on
| Presidential authority or an unconstitutional delegation of
| Congressional authority, and courts have so far failed to
| resolve it, having found lack of standing in the few cases
| that have been brought under it.)
|
| But even the War Powers Act doesn't purport to prohibit the
| President from using force _in advance of_ Congressional
| authorization.
| abraxas wrote:
| > it does not, on its own, prohibit any other action than
| "declaring war" to any other actor.
|
| That's why it will be a "Special Military Operation in
| Greenland" or "SMO in Canada".
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Recent history has shown this to be flexible. See Grenada,
| Nicaragua, Iraq I, Iraq II, and others
| breckenedge wrote:
| Only in the second gulf war did the US become an
| occupying force, and this action was permitted by
| congress. The others may have been "invasions" but
| certainly not occupations or annexations. I could be
| wrong, but I don't see congress allowing Trump to destroy
| NATO.
| alexey-salmin wrote:
| First time, huh?
| darkerside wrote:
| I think you need to better define the order. It is unlikely to
| simply be to "attack" Greenland. If they were ordered to make
| landfall and establish a base of operations, that is very
| different from bombing military or civilian targets.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The U.S. already has a base of operations on Greenland, under
| agreement with Denmark:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base
| rodrigosetti wrote:
| I don't understand the point. We are all free to disobey and have
| to deal with the consequences. It can't be otherwise. Nobody can
| pass as an automaton.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| The point is that military officers have an _obligation_ to
| disobey when the situation warrants it.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| But at the same time, obedience, discipline and chain-of-
| command are ingrained in military culture (do correct me if
| I'm wrong, my main sources are movies and propaganda). But
| also trust, trust that e.g. your commanding officer knows
| what they're doing, considered the risks, and takes
| responsibility. They too in turn make decisions based on what
| they know / are told; if there's civilians in a target but
| intelligence doesn't say so, are you or your chain of command
| guilty of a war crime?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Having spent a bit of time working with the British army,
| I'd say there's a lot of pushback, either overt or covert.
| They even by doctrine have someone nominated in group
| decisions as the person who will play devil's advocate, to
| try and reduce groupthink, as groupthink is bad and they
| know it.
| ielillo wrote:
| Not sure if you read Generation Kill or watched the
| miniseries, but that is one of the main points. In there,
| there were two platoon commanders, Lieutenant Fick and
| Captain America(The book never reveals its name, and I
| think the series does, but I don't recall at this moment).
| While Lieutenant Fick was a competent officer that tried to
| kept the welfare of his troops, he often butted heads with
| its direct superiors since the order given to him could
| endanger the lives of his subordinates while not
| accomplishing nothing of value. In contrast Captain
| America, was an incompetent officer who gave reckless
| orders, was ignored by his troops and could have been
| possibly be charged with war crimes. At the end of the
| series, when the journalist is interviewing the battalion
| commander about why Captain America was never disciplined
| for his actions, the battalion commander answers that the
| same leeway that he gave to Lieutenant Fick was given to
| Captain America. In other words if he were to punish
| Captain America, he should also be punishing Lieutenant
| Fick. In retrospective is understandable, but when you read
| or watch it, you wonder why no action is being taken to
| discipline Captain America and why no one listens to
| Lieutenant Fick
| rawgabbit wrote:
| If you did not know civilians were present, it is very
| unlikely you will be charged under the UCMJ. Here is an
| article from Human Rights Watch about the lack of
| consequences https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/25/lost-
| innocents.
|
| With regards to movies, remember prior to the modern era
| many soldiers and seaman were forced to serve against their
| will. Discipline was brutal. In the British American War of
| 1812, one of the reasons for war was the forced impressment
| of American sailors into the British Navy. British Admiral
| Horatio Nelson acknowledged the critical role of
| impressment in maintaining the British Navy's manpower. In
| 1803, he reported that over 42,000 sailors had deserted
| since 1793, highlighting the challenges of crew retention.
| He stated, "Without a press, I have no idea how our Fleet
| can be manned."
| https://www.nps.gov/articles/impressment.htm
|
| It was Prussia's Moltke the Elder who recognized the
| complexity of modern war and the need for officers to think
| independently. " _Subordinates would have to use initiative
| and independent judgment for the forces to be effective in
| battle. Campaign and battle plans should encourage and take
| advantage of the decentralization that would be necessary
| in any case. In this new concept, commanders of distant
| detachments were required to exercise initiative in their
| decision-making and Moltke emphasized the benefits of
| developing officers who could do this within the limits of
| the senior commander 's intent._". https://en.m.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
|
| With all that said, it all comes down to personal
| conscience. Of deciding what is right and wrong.
| cainxinth wrote:
| Knowledge is knowing the rules. Wisdom is knowing when to bend or
| break them.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Courage is breaking them when you know you'll pay a price for
| doing the right thing.
| BMc2020 wrote:
| _...Do you honestly think somebody 's gonna get up on the floor
| of the United States Senate, and ask for billions of dollars for
| a couple of forgotten ghosts?_
|
| _Trautman: Men, Goddamn it! Men... who fought for their
| country!_
|
| _Murdock: That 's enough! Trautman, I'm gonna forget this
| conversation ever took place._
|
| _Trautman: You bastard!_
|
| _Murdock: And if I were you... I 'd never make the mistake of
| bringing this subject up again._
|
| _Trautman: Oh you 're the one who's making the mistake._
|
| _Murdock: Yeah? What mistake?_
|
| _Trautman: Rambo._
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I learned recently that this and all the other MIA/POW focused
| media of the era was based on a conspiracy theory that traces
| back to a Nixon press conference that tried to reframe Vietnam
| into a rescue mission for imprisoned soldiers who probably
| didn't exist to improve support at home.
|
| https://theoutline.com/post/7984/rambo-last-blood-vietnam-bo...
|
| The other tiny detail I liked was the real life POW-rescuing
| Rambo-type figure was used as the basis of the Hannibal
| character in the A-team show.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| It's disturbing how much of the current US political
| landscape--the fundamental social/perceived-historical
| identities of the two parties, which are one of two things
| that determine how people actually vote, the other being
| "does it seem like ( _seem_ like) bad things are happening
| right now?", see _Democracy for Realists_ --is based on
| straight-up fiction. A lot of it from the Nixon and Reagan
| administrations and associated propaganda efforts, but
| extending into the Clinton (lies about local work-requirement
| experiments for benefits being amplified and driving policy,
| on top of a bunch of 70s and 80s era lies about how those
| programs work that are _to this day_ considered true by tons
| of people) and of course Bush II admins. It's impossible to
| even start to talk about serious policy with a mixed and
| representative group of people in the US because you have to
| start with trying to de-program all the horse shit and wild
| misconceptions most of them have internalized, and that's a
| tall order all on its own.
| mrangle wrote:
| Universally, articles that attempt to advance these views tend to
| be politically and morally chaotic.
|
| Their recommendations are always vague and therefore open to
| political exploitation. Ignored or amplified when expedient and
| when someone with an actual stake has something on the line.
|
| Cowardly.
|
| Question: in a public bureaucracy that is always naturally intent
| on protecting itself but which also has rules and a judiciary,
| who is responsible for ignoring or amplifying intentionally vague
| external standards of morality? Political actors, perhaps?
|
| The sum effects seem to be the desire to leave lower level ranks
| politically vulnerable and threatened by non-military political
| actors. And therefore perhaps to undermine the military hierarchy
| in general, with implied threats.
|
| I agree that there are likely times to not follow orders, but the
| rules surrounding when that is to be the case cannot be vague
| whatsoever. Those times can not be subject to significant
| interpretation if we are to see such critiques as honest and not
| underhanded.
| mkl95 wrote:
| Ironically, the military seems to foster a more liberal culture
| than the tech industry. I have been reprimanded for disobeying
| orders a few times, and seen colleagues put on PIPs and fired
| after a couple of months. Most "fast-growing" companies resemble
| an absolute monarchy.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| > Most "fast-growing" companies resemble an absolute monarchy.
|
| Which explains why the tech bros are currently trying to
| install what's effectively a monarchy in the US federal
| government. Companies are inherently non democratic, so it's
| kind of bad that they're trying to install the same thing
| federally.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| The founding fathers installed the monarchy. They simply
| thought that they could control it by making it non-
| heritable. The US president had more power than King George
| from the very beginning and certainly has more now.
| rdtsc wrote:
| "Fast growing" companies pretend to be the friendly, accepting,
| and understanding, but usually comes with a dark side where
| it's hard for them to point out small issues early and correct
| them. Because that's "negative" and doesn't jive "we're nice
| and friendly" image. So they keep sweeping issues under the rug
| until it's too late, and even then, they can't let someone go
| and need to pretend like they really want to keep them with
| PIP, while everyone knows it's bullshit to cover their ass, and
| person will be 100% out of there.
| thayne wrote:
| One thing that confuses me about the current situation in the US
| government, is why more more people in the various government
| agencies aren't pushing back against all these executive orders.
| Especially, those that are clearly illegal, or unconstitutional.
| watwut wrote:
| They do. It wont matter unless there is prosecution.
| rob74 wrote:
| Prosecution? Of the president who just last year got wide-
| ranging immunity from the Supreme Court? Or of his right-hand
| guy who allegedly does nothing without the president's OK?
| Swoerd wrote:
| Only Mario's brother can save the US now.
| watwut wrote:
| Look, I agree with you on all points: politically, about
| rule of law being destroyed and also about Supreme Court
| being knowingly complicit. But, pushback is happening and
| is ignore. And it wont make change this year, not until
| actual catastrophe happens to America itself. Pushback can
| slow down descent, it can achieve improvements in the long
| term.
|
| Lasting change for the better could happen only if it was
| possible to prosecute actual crimes that happen. As long as
| these are immune (which they are), things will only get
| worst.
|
| And as long as half of Americans are determined to
| euphemism away and both side away and twist themselves into
| pretzels to enable and excuse, things wont get better. And
| then it will take massive amount of reforms to make things
| good again. And pretty much all the totally not pro-Trump
| people full off infinite benefit of the doubt towards him
| will suddenly loose it.
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Hasn't risen to the point where the people perpetrating the
| crimes are credibly threatened with violence. People are still
| gambling on the nonviolent options.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| They lead with firing a ton of the people in semi-independent
| executive branch offices that are suppose to raise red flags
| (in an advisory role, and formally putting the brakes on things
| if that's not enough) if the admin tries to do illegal stuff.
| Like, that was among their first actions.
|
| They've been clearing out people who might resist before they
| get a chance to, and have made it clear that your life's gonna
| be messed up (your career's over, if nothing else, which is a
| pretty big deal for normal non-billionaires) if you rock the
| boat.
|
| The only major, public resistance has been over dropping the
| prosecution of NY's mayor, and the first of the prosecutors to
| resign received a letter promising retaliation against other
| members of her office and that she'd have an investigation
| launched against _her_ , which, even if it goes nowhere, is
| basically promising to make someone's life hell for the next
| year or so. They're looking to hurt people who don't play
| along, so others just shut up and do what they're told.
|
| We haven't seen them going after political opponents (Democrats
| _or_ Republicans who don 't nod along to every single thing--
| and business leaders, this isn't limited to politicians) but
| nearly everyone in DC and in big business is a bit dirty and I
| wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing very _selective_
| investigations and prosecutions of things that everyone had
| kinda agreed to overlook up until now (and that may be _far_
| from the most-severe corruption going on), that they don 't
| even pretend aren't aimed at getting everyone else to stay in
| line and go along with the agenda, legality be damned. They've
| got the access to do it and there are some indications DOGE and
| pals are starting to poke around in things like tax records.
| tiahura wrote:
| Maybe there should be, but there's no such thing as a semi-
| independent branch. Whoever told you so is either trying to
| mislead you or hasn't read the constitution.
|
| In the US, there are just 3 branches. Unless you work for
| congress or the courts, you work for the executive branch.
| buttercraft wrote:
| They said branch _offices_
| HPMOR wrote:
| "I expect that you will eventually find somebody who is foolish
| enough or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was
| never going to be me." - SDNY Prosecutor resigning after being
| asked to drop the Eric Adams corruption case. The people who
| would push back are resigning as their last resort. Soon
| anybody who has any sense of fidelity to the rule of law or the
| constitution will be removed from power.
| rob74 wrote:
| Resigning or being fired, like the USAID inspector general:
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/11/trump-
| federa...
| ericjmorey wrote:
| Resignation is quitting before the fight. Make them fire you
| and file suit for wrongful termination.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| Not everyone has the appetite for litigation. It can be
| expensive in cash, time, and relationships. Anyone
| supporting a family will need to consider the effect it
| will have on the family. We aren't all brave enough to
| fight against such a powerful adversary even if no one else
| would be negatively affected by doing it.
|
| Of course population level passivity in the end allows the
| adversary to win but it's hard to be the first to stand on
| the front line.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Litigation is absolutely horrible. There is a reason they
| say "you can't fight city hall."
|
| The gov will burn itself down to fight you in court. They
| generally don't like to settle because losing just means
| they may have to raise taxes or insurance premiums. No
| gov attorney is likely to actually lose their job because
| they fought too long or hard and lost.
| tiahura wrote:
| Don't be so sure they're all unconstitutional. Read A2S1. Read
| Humphrey's Executor and try not to snicker.
| iqandjoke wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
| kerblang wrote:
| I'd be interested in hearing from former service members who have
| also worked in "tech" companies: Which is more authoritarian?
|
| I'm guessing the answer is tech companies, esp. the modern
| version of such. Modern military officers tend to give a lot of
| leeway & empowerment to subordinates so that mission-building can
| be more opportunistic and adjustable. Tech companies tend to
| eviscerate anyone who dares contradict someone of higher rank.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| In my experience, tech suffers from short term thinking and is
| not concerned about long term consequences.
|
| In the military it is a privilege to be given responsibility
| over a group of men and women. At least for me, I was very
| aware of these issues. I was a believer in the "God" camp.
| There is a noticeable contingent of US military who wear their
| religious beliefs on their sleeves. It is complicated but at
| least for me, morality occupied my mind all the time.
| krunck wrote:
| Loyalty and obedience are excellent traits for a dog, not a
| human.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-17 23:01 UTC)