Worth dusting off: 'A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders'

[LuckyTheDog]

Here is something I ran across while Googling. This idea might be very relevant if Bush orders a war with Iran without Congressional approval:

http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html

As the United States government under George Bush gets closer to attacking the people of Iraq, there are several things that the men and women of the U.S. armed forces need to know and bear in mind as they are given orders from the Bush administration. This information is provided for the use of the members of the armed forces, their families, friends and supporters, and all who are concerned about the current direction of U.S. policy toward Iraq.

The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:

"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 the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders ar

[Hosnon]

1. Thanks for bringing this up. Each soldier will have a legal argument if

they choose to challenge deployment.

However, statutes, e.g., the UCMJ, cannot trump the Constitution. The Administration's counter argument will be that President Bush has the relevant authority under Article II and that the UCMJ and/or a resolution of relevant kind unconstitutionally limit(s) his authority.

[Vincardog]

2. The current pResident would argue that Congress and the Constitution unconstitutionally limit(s) his

authority. He and his radical reich wing nutz are wrong.

[Hosnon]

3. He can't do the latter by definition. However, any President can certainly argue

that Congress has overstepped its boundaries.

I think the answer would be more clear were there no IWR. If the original invasion relied solely upon a perception of authority under Article II to defend the nation (via 9/11), it would be easier to argue that the President has no authority to keep troops there. However, since there was an IWR, the invasion was most likely legal (under U.S. law). And, of course, the best case scenario would have been an explicit resolution denying any Congressional consent to the invasion (in the beginning).

However, now that we are there things are a bit more tricky...

[Vincardog]

4. WQ@ell since the IWR was based on lies and the conditions no longer exist

why not vote to re-authorize the IWR? Vote it down and give aWoL 60 days to GTFO of Iraq?

[Hosnon]

5. I agree. Congress should do two things: First, rescind the IWR and narrow the AUMF to

explicitly exclude the war in Iraq. Second, approve no increases in funding beyond what is needed to sustain the status quo. Then, begin to cut funding for troop deployment to Iraq, i.e., when a unit comes home, there is no funding to send that unit back.

However, there is a fine line between Congress' authority to control the purse and Congress' lack of authority to manage war. Congress needs to be careful that any funding maneuvers (like the one I propose) stay on the right side of that line.

[Vincardog]

6. Like what they did to end Vietnam?

[Hosnon]

7. I'm not sure exactly how that went down. Wasn't there some type of

"peace agreement" that officially ended it and let us leave "with honor"?

Edit: Quick Wiki search helped me out. Appears that Congress cut funding and cut ties with S. Vietnam. Yes, that is pretty much what I think needs to be done. Congress needs to close the wallet.

[Hosnon]

8. Ugh...except that we need enough votes to override a Presidential veto.

This thing has to be won politically. The country has to make it clear to Republicans that they will not be elected for the foreseeable future if they don't get on board and vote to cut funding.