Does Constitutional military service mean "follow the chain of command without exception"?

2017-05-27T00:48:43-04:00

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2017 1:12 AM

2017-05-27T01:12:59-04:00

It means that the laws that govern the military are determined by congress as set by the Constitution. As long as POTUS grants command authority and those using that authority do so in accordance to the laws and regulations governed by congress, then we as Soldiers are bound to adhere to that authority. As many surely know, this topic is well established in FM 7-21-13 Duties, Responsibilities, and Authority of the Soldier, and AR 600-20 Army Command Policy

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2017 2:14 AM

2017-05-27T02:14:28-04:00

I know the joke is out there but we're not drones. We are expected to follow orders so long as they're lawful and moral. I know there's a debate about battlefield orders while under fire and morality/legal issues (see the movie Rules of Engagement). I don't have an answer for that, I guess you have to trust your leaders.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made May 27 at 2017 5:01 AM

2017-05-27T05:01:05-04:00

Saying you're just following orders is not a legal defense to unlawful orders. Also if your orders are to set up a position on a rooftop and that position offers neither concealment nor cover, it would be recommended to use common sense and set up on the top floor so you can complete your mission, you have to adjust to the situation at times.

Response by SPC Bonnie Tabb Dennis made May 27 at 2017 5:53 AM

2017-05-27T05:53:37-04:00

We each have a moral compass that guides us to follow lawful orders only.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made May 27 at 2017 9:39 AM

2017-05-27T09:39:31-04:00

Day by day, I am losing faith in our military officer and enlisted education and leadership development programs due to statements and questions like the one at the head of this discussion.

Define "Constitutional military service". What does that even mean?

Next - Is your question, follow the chain of command OR follow orders?
That is two distinctly different questions.

Let's address "follow the chain of command" branch -
The "chain of command" is the rules for who's in charge of who in a company, a government department, the army, etc. In other words, it's the structure of relationships between superiors and subordinates, like bosses and their employees.
The phrase "chain of command" comes from the military, where there are strict rules about who is higher up (generals, etc) and lower (privates, sergeants) in the organization. The order is supposed to be like a chain from lowest to highest:
•Private > Sergeant > Lieutenant > Major > Colonel > General
To "follow" the chain of command means to follow the rules about who is allowed to make different decisions in an organization.
For Army personnel see FM 6-22 - "Furthermore, it also produces leaders that possess the integrity and willingness to act in the absence of orders, when existing orders, doctrine or their own experience no longer fit the situation, or when unforeseen opportunities or threats arise."

Now let's address the "follow orders" branch -
"But the general rule is that members of the armed forces are bound to obey only the lawful orders of their commanding officers and they cannot escape criminal liability by obeying a command which violates international law and outrages fundamental concepts of justice.”
“The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior’s order is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually know to the accused to be unlawful.” - United States v. Calley, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 534, 542 (C.M.A. 1973)
For all military personnel see the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAW OF WAR MANUAL

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2017 10:01 AM

2017-05-27T10:01:52-04:00

We are told to obey the orders of those appointed over us. However, the word "order" can be broken down into "Lawful" and "Unlawful". If the order is unlawful (carries no valid military purpose, is too broadly drawn, etc) then the order should not be followed.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made May 27 at 2017 10:12 AM

2017-05-27T10:12:04-04:00

There are lots of valid reasons to not follow the chain of command. The illegal orders mentioned is certainly one of them but the entire IG complaint system is also one where you may not follow the chain for any number of reasons.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 27 at 2017 10:29 AM

2017-05-27T10:29:56-04:00

I don't think "I was only following orders" worked at Nuremberg...

Response by SPC William Biles made May 27 at 2017 12:44 PM

2017-05-27T12:44:04-04:00

Im guessing No. It sounds like one should follow the Constitution, and to not blindly follow orders.

Response by SPC William Biles made May 27 at 2017 12:47 PM

2017-05-27T12:47:15-04:00

Woot! 100% answers are No.
I can hear, SFC Dox, saying,
"Don't be, 'The One', Pvt!"

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made May 27 at 2017 10:15 PM

2017-05-27T22:15:49-04:00

I've read the Vice-President's speech and all the responses and am reminded of some advice given to me as a Lieutenant; it was "You are overthinking this Quinter". The advice, under "orientation to authority" was to "always follow the chain of command". Chain of command has nothing to do with rank precedence, the chain of command involves specific authority delegated by designated person to persons under his command to lead a specific unit in the commander's name. The Commanding General appoints officers as Commanding Officers and so on down the line until the lowest unit commander appoints his staff to run sections on his behalf. All of this has nothing to do with the legality of the orders published by any of the appointees. It is a method to break a large number of people into manageable sized units and define who is responsible for that sub-group, whatever its designation, accomplishing its mission. If a problem occurs that an individual feels must be addressed, the chain is designed for the issue to be addressed up the chain until it reaches the level where it is either corrected, or deemed not a problem. Following the chain of command allows all responsible individuals the opportunity to resolve the issue, thereby relieving the senior commander of the need to handle an issue that should be resolved by one of his designated responsible individuals.
Following the chain in the case of an illegal order again resolves the issue at the lowest, therefore most responsive level. For instance, if your platoon leader tells you to do something you feel is materially or morally wrong, going to the company commander will give the individual closest at hand the opportunity to solve the problem within minutes or hours instead of the hours or days it would probably take to bring the issue to the battalion or division commander's attention.