Hard Power and Soft Power

[squorch2]

It has reached a point where I have to have weekly conversations at work about what our Oath really means. I have to have conversations about what lawful orders are.

We're in a precarious position in which we can become the bad guys.

It's a conversation every Guardsman should be having. We are not loyal to a man. We are loyal to the Constitution of our Nation and of our State. We will be found guilty if we follow illegal (but somehow popular) orders.

Amplifying this by pointing out that EOs aren't law, and when EOs conflict with law, law wins.

Thus far not many executive actions are holding up to scrutiny.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

You have to be realistic about the message this sends.

As does "being realistic" about preemptively pardoning family members for crimes they might be accused of in the future have a "good" message?
We should be concerned about what message this sends but also where is there ANY legal basis for that action.
Whether I agree or not with the decision to pardon the "1500", there is solid legal basis for that action.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

Thus far not many executive actions are holding up to scrutiny.

???
Public or legal scrutiny?
My read is that very few of presidential executive orders historically and at the present get legal challenges, and those tend to temporarily delay, not overturn, the order.

 

[Spekkio]

Never stated "that's unconstitutional" as a basis for anything. I did state "and all the laws from which it flowed." which I thought clearly meant as enacted by statute and validated in the courts.

I was more commenting on a general sense where there's a lot of people asking "what if I get asked to do something unconstitutional?"

You don't have to worry about such things, you only have to worry about whether or not the order is lawful - i.e., that the person giving you the order has the authority to give it and it doesn't require you to break any other laws to execute it. That's why major commanders have SJAs.

Swearing to support and defend the constitution means swearing to uphold the rule of law, even when you don't like the outcome.

 

[wink]

This goes way beyond politics and speaks directly to a military leadership challenge.

Three mil personnel were convicted of war crimes (two of them murder) by the military justice system, and the then-POTUS directly intervened, strongly cheered on by the new SECDEF in his previous role.

Then, 1500 were pardoned for violent actions to interfere with a free and fair election that resulted in many, many injuries and multiple deaths of law enforcement personnel.

You have to be realistic about the message this sends.

...and multiple deaths of law enforcement personnel.

no cops were murdered. there were no arrests for homicide. There was much wrong doing regarding Jan 6th protests. It is not necessary to hype exaggerated claims.

 

[taxi1]

Whether I agree or not with the decision to pardon the "1500", there is solid legal basis for that action.

Sure. There'd be solid legal basis for pardoning for a bunch of rogue National Guardsmen or civilian militia that gunned down unarmed migrants crossing the border, to be followed by a tweet celebrating the patriots.

This is not a way-out hypothetical.

It speaks to @Swanee 's concerns on leadership.

no cops were murdered. there were no arrests for homicide. There was much wrong doing regarding Jan 6th protests. It is not necessary to hype exaggerated claims.

I am careful with my words

• 1 police officer died of a stroke exacerbated by the attack
• 4 police officers died due to suicide
• 1 person died directly by gunshot

 

[Griz882]

…a bunch of rogue National Guardsmen or civilian militia that gunned down unarmed migrants crossing the border, to be followed by a tweet celebrating the patriots.

This is not a way-out hypothetical.

We seem to be getting way off trail here. Every president since 2006 has deployed the National Guard to the border (and three state governors before that), and no one went rogue or shot up “unarmed migrants.” The implication is quite insulting to the Guard.

 

[PhrogLoop]

no cops were murdered. there were no arrests for homicide. There was much wrong doing regarding Jan 6th protests. It is not necessary to hype exaggerated claims.

But maiming and suicides are acceptable outcomes of J6 “wrongdoing”? Way to back the blue.

 

[Swanee]

Completely agree with this statement.
To date, active duty and Natl. Guard movements, in particular along the southern border, have been well within the law.
Are there any specific orders you are referring to. or just a discussion point?

More generalities than specifics but we do have some capabilities that we simply can't use in CONUS without a warrant, and even then it's... Nebulous. And yes, the conversations have come up.

I've flown southern border missions with VMU-1 in Yuma. But I am not talking only about border operations. There are a lot of discussions about other operations within CONUS.

The rhetoric is heating up. Now is not the time for any one to not be 100% certain on what they can and cannot do.

I'm not saying we'll make the wrong decisions, but it's important that we have these discussions.

 

[wink]

Sure. There'd be solid legal basis for pardoning for a bunch of rogue National Guardsmen or civilian militia that gunned down unarmed migrants crossing the border, to be followed by a tweet celebrating the patriots.

This is not a way-out hypothetical.

It speaks to @Swanee 's concerns on leadership.


I am careful with my words

• 1 police officer died of a stroke exacerbated by the attack
• 4 police officers died due to suicide
• 1 person died directly by gunshot

As I said, exaggerated. There is NO proven medical or forensic evidence directly linking any of those deaths to jan 6th duty. You even misrepresent the one death directly linked to the protest by listing this 'person" (not an officer) with fatal leo medical events. The gunshot death was, of course, at the hands of police in the line of duty.. These deaths are tragic. there is no reason for misrepresentation or exaggeration. Yes, your words where chosen carefully, apparently to further a narrative.

 

[sevenhelmet]

But maiming and suicides are acceptable outcomes of J6 “wrongdoing”? Way to back the blue.

The Fraternal Order of Police seems to agree.

As I said, exaggerated. There is NO proven medical or forensic evidence directly linking any of those deaths to jan 6th duty. You even misrepresent the one death directly linked to the protest by listing this 'person" (not an officer) with fatal leo medical events. The gunshot death was, of course, at the hands of police in the line of duty.. These deaths are tragic. there is no reason for misrepresentation or exaggeration. Yes, your words where chosen carefully, apparently to further a narrative.

Understating can be part of a narrative as well. If you assault someone and they later die, you can be charged with murder. Arguing this down smacks of apologism- are you OK with the convicted J6ers going free?

 

[taxi1]

I know three of the police deaths are considered Line of Duty stemming to Jan 6 events. Not sure of two.

 

[Swanee]

Sure. There'd be solid legal basis for pardoning for a bunch of rogue National Guardsmen or civilian militia that gunned down unarmed migrants crossing the border, to be followed by a tweet celebrating the patriots.

This is not a way-out hypothetical.

It speaks to @Swanee 's concerns on leadership.


I am careful with my words

• 1 police officer died of a stroke exacerbated by the attack
• 4 police officers died due to suicide
• 1 person died directly by gunshot

This has come up in the discussions. The cartels have been declared terrorist organizations. What can I do with a hellfire missile against a coyote running at the border? Can I do anything? What if someone says that CDE is acceptable? What does the SJA say? What if there is no immediate threat to US citizens? What if someone asks/orders us to use XYZ pod over ABC border, or EFG "sanctuary city"? Can we do that? Who am I working for that day? As an aside, if someone "asks" us to do something there is an extra burden on us to determine legality. "Hey, we just asked them if they could do it and they said yes. I didn't break the law, they did."

We really have to think about this. My guidance is always, "Bottom line- if there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Don't do it."

 

[PhrogLoop]

As I said, exaggerated. There is NO proven medical or forensic evidence directly linking any of those deaths to jan 6th duty.

@wink, I respect you for your service to our Country and your community, but you’re off my Christmas card list.

 

[BearlingBababeano]

This has come up in the discussions. The cartels have been declared terrorist organizations. What can I do with a hellfire missile against a coyote running at the border? Can I do anything? What if someone says that CDE is acceptable? What does the SJA say? What if there is no immediate threat to US citizens? What if someone asks/orders us to use XYZ pod over ABC border, or EFG "sanctuary city"? Can we do that? Who am I working for that day? As an aside, if someone "asks" us to do something there is an extra burden on us to determine legality. "Hey, we just asked them if they could do it and they said yes. I didn't break the law, they did."

We really have to think about this. My guidance is always, "Bottom line- if there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Don't do it."

"When in doubt, talk to JA" has been an oft-used quote in my AS class recently. I'm sure it's not a coincidence.