No you don't. There is a chain of command. You do not just "talk to your CO"
Yes, of course. I don't know why this riled you up so much, but to clarify; this was just my short-hand for 'the guy directly in charge of you.' I'm not in the military. I suspect the majority of members here are not either. So the specific nomenclature is not particularly relevant to the larger point. So while I was posting a message at work amongst doing other things, I didn't pay specific attention to not using short-hand that might have different meanings for a civilian than it actually does in the military.
A military professional is a person who has dedicated their life and career to serving in the armed forces and specializing in a particular military occupation or skill. If you're talking about civilian lawyers, they might be able to help, but that's going to be tricky. Once you sign up, you fall under The Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's a whole different animal than a civilian court. You can try asking the American Civil Liberties Union for help, but there won't be much they can do, either.
I'm aware of all this. I was saying that, in reference to someone in the military telling me they were speaking with military professionals on this topic - I don't know what they were referencing, specifically. Were they talking to a career officer, a judge advocate...? I don't actually know, so I'm not going to pretend I do. I was relaying the specific wording given to me and trying not to editorialize.
And I've already told you, YOU CAN DISOBEY A DIRECT ORDER IF YOU CONSIDER IT UNLAWFUL.
Yeah. Nobody has disagreed with you about that. I linked to a video of an actual former Marine captain explaining that that's not always as simple or straight-forward as it sounds.
and it's in the constitution
A phrase that has had less and less meaning since Trump took office, it would seem.
I just simply cannot picture a service member being sent to the brig for refusing to fire on UNARMED CIVILIANS. You would have to be a lunatic to even consider such a thing. The cold blooded murder of civilians was not my mission when I was in, and it's not now.
I think it's unfair to say it wasn't your 'mission' because no one is saying it was or is. But it happens. The Wiki page detailing US War Crimes abroad is longer than my leg. The question isn't whether or not this is somehow becoming the -mission- of the United States military. The question is whether, if push comes to shove and protestors can be painted as aggressors, will marines or guardsmen, in this case, follow orders if those orders include using lethal force. I'm not seeing a lot of analysts out there suggesting it cannot happen despite how much that seems to upset you. No one is suggesting it SHOULD happen. But there is often a wide gulf between what should be and what could be.
All of your arguments here can be turned around as 'cops aren't supposed to kill unarmed civilians.' But they do. Often enough that it's a well-recognized problem that we still haven't even begun to solve.
The problem is not the military. The problem is the totally corrupt and incompetent executive branch of our government.
No one suggested otherwise.
But really, this is a dumb argument and I am done with this thread. It's a waste of time. You kids have fun.
It's a waste of time you spent at least some time responding to before deciding it was a waste of time - which is somewhat hypocritical, I have to say. Also - just a super condescending way to end a post, so that's cool.
I don't know where all of... this.. came from. You're not obligated to post in this thread if you don't want to. Maybe this doesn't matter to you, but I'm certainly not going to take it personally or have my feelings hurt if you'd rather not have this discussion or whatever. Totally fine. I've always liked you. So understand that I mean no disrespect when I say you can take this condescending closer and shove it up your ass, old man.
To be VERY clear, though; as I said above, I have loved ones in the US military right now. I am NOT sitting here bashing the military or anyone in it. I am being realistic about potentialities when a corrupt government attempts to weaponize the military against the citizens because the corrupt politicians refuse to put a leash on the shaking, pissing little dog they put a crown on. If that is a sore subject for anyone and they'd rather not discuss it - no one HAS to.
In fact, I'd argue anyone is free to talk politics in this thread while ignoring any particular topic they don't want to engage with. There's no obligation on anyone here to engage with any particular topic. And that -needs- to be okay with everyone. None of us are entitled to responses from anyone else on any subject.
www.bbc.com
