I'll wait to hear why everybody under the military legal code will somehow risk being charged for insubordination in military court, especially when military chain of command has already seen two officers get fired by Obummer for defying his orders regarding Benghazi.
"Because I scream so and arbitrary pessimism is 'realistic'" is not a valid argument.
Yes, as long as the case has gone through the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (or CAAF). With respect to appeals from the CAAF, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant certiorari in four specific circumstances: 1) cases in which a death sentence has been affirmed by the relevant branch’s Court of Criminal Appeals; 2) cases that a Judge Advocate General has certified to the CAAF; 3) cases in which the CAAF granted a petition for review, and 4) cases that do not fall in the other categories but in which the CAAF has granted relief. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1259.
Spez: You’re way out of your depth, man.
Spez: And stop talking about the UCMJ as if I’m unfamiliar with it. I literally taught you what it was in this thread.
This is after the initial court martial. Does not matter at that point. I can tell because you had to take some time to try to search engine a rebuttal.
You keep dodging the topic of the actual logistics of defying the order for martial law, which would not work out regardless of whether the order is declared unlawful after the order is carried out.
Dude, the case could go to SCOTUS, thus SCOTUS can set precedent when hearing those cases. I’m dropping citations, your dropping your feelings and delusions.
As for logistics, as another commenter posted, it’s power that matters. The JAG Corps is full of leftists; the brass is full of leftists. They won’t reliably transmit orders, they will tell subordinates to ignore Trump’s orders. Trump can fire a bunch, some won’t leave. Still others will pretend to support him to his face and sabotage his orders behind his back.
It isn’t that people (including myself) aren’t addressing your “points,” such as they are, it’s that you’re too low IQ to understand any of us.
Does not matter when carrying out the Insurrection Act.
OK, which figures, which branches
THIS IS HOW I KNOW YOU ARE A LARPING ARMCHAIR LAWYER WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MILITARY JUSTICE, OR HOW THE MILITARY CONDUCTS ITSELF.
So wait, the chain of command is going to commit insubordination en masse, in the terms you describe unequivocally, and that's going to stop the order? That's going to get them ruled guilty instantly.
Military, even officers are explicitly trained to act with respect towards their superiors. Culturally that makes it VERY difficult to just defy your superior officer whenever you feel like it, and the recruitment process implicitly is designed to weed out people who would question orders. If we had a disobedient chain of command we WOULDN'T WIN ANY WARS.
"All orders are presumed to be lawful when issued." THAT'S WHY I CITED MY MILITARY EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE CIVILIAN OUTSIDERS WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. An officer can question a order and ask for clarification, sure, and then refuse to carry it out. But at that point s/he instantly would lose their rank and be slated for court-martial. The officer if s/he is lucky, will get demoted all the way back to E-1 among other consequences. A fucking officer. Most people will not be willing to give that up. Again, you are asserting that mass insubordination will occur amongst the highest ranking officers because they want a slim chance at press deals, AFTER they face military court .DELUSIONAL.
A failure to carry out an order is VERY EASY to spot. A failure to carry out an order means you are presumed guilty of insubordination until you get to military court, and even then you have to put together a rock-solid case with your defense. Military court does not operate on "innocent until proven guilty." AGAIN, the system is designed to heavily discourage defying orders from the highest of ranks.