Posted on Jan 20, 2016
When do our senior officers have the responsibility to dissent and say no?
2.91K
35
30
4
4
0
Our armed forces operate under the elected administration. When do our senior officers have the responsibility to say no? What is their appropriate path of dissent?
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/01/19/when_appeasement_is_in_season_108916.html
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/01/19/when_appeasement_is_in_season_108916.html
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
8
8
0
You always have the duty to say no when you think what is going on is immoral or illegal. The key is that you are willing to accept the consequences of saying no. Many people are not too keen on that part of it.
(8)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
Excellent response, but I'm more concerned with the responsibilities of our senior officers up to and including the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What path is available to the Chairman, after advising the CinC to no avail?
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LtCol Robert Quinter - I think the answer is the same. Only the potential consequences are bigger and more public.
(1)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
LtCol Robert Quinter - The Chairman can refuse an order if he believes something is illegal, just like any officer can and should. I believe LTC Paul Labrador answered that really well. Your original question is "when do officers have the responsibility to say no?"... the answer is all the time, if an order is illegal. To answer your question on "what path", military personnel should simply refuse to comply with an order if they have strong reason to believe it is illegal, and if time permits, follow up with due process through the military's legal channels.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
If we are given an illegal order we are bound to say no LtCol Robert Quinter.
This of course requires a general knowledge of the UCMJ but most of us have consciences ands we can spot something which is illegal - it benefits somebody directly, it harms the innocent, ir takes away the freedom of somebody with insufficient evidence or it transfers money for personal gain, etc.
This of course requires a general knowledge of the UCMJ but most of us have consciences ands we can spot something which is illegal - it benefits somebody directly, it harms the innocent, ir takes away the freedom of somebody with insufficient evidence or it transfers money for personal gain, etc.
(3)
(0)
LtCol Robert Quinter
Without a doubt, and I honestly believe that our officers are capable of making the judgments to which you refer, but how about the 4 stars in cases where a CinC has left our people out to swing in the wind?
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
LtCol Robert Quinter - it is very sad when senior officers leave our people to hang out in the wind. What come to my mind is teh situation where our service members went after an Afghan "allie" who was sodomizing a child and were repremened for it and at least one was forced from the service. That incident makes my blood boil.
(2)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
LtCol Robert Quinter - Not sure why the differentiation between a 4 Star and a Lieutenant? If one is certain that an order is illegal, one should not comply with it. Stars on the collar only make that even more important.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
They have a duty to say no when they are being forced to act against their conscience. The appropriate path of dissent is resignation.
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LtCol Robert Quinter, I would not choose to continue to serve under those exceptionally dishonorable circumstances.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LtCol Robert Quinter - what are you even talking about with this "the CINC committed forces and abandoned them" stuff?
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LtCol Robert Quinter - i did. You can't be talking about Benghazi, unless you are talking about the right wing fantasy world rather than the real world. The article talks about the sailors in Iran, but the POTUS got them out in less than a day. Sowhat event are you talking about? Why not just come out and give the example of where the POTUS himself put troops into harms way and then left them hanging over the objections of the joint chiefs.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google