She has been dying for awhile.... She is the only person I have heard of that survived pancreatic cancer (5% 5yr survival rate) everytime she had a health issue I was surprised it wasnt an annoucement it wasnt her passing. Lol I said "it happened!" And my SO knew she had died just by me saying that hahaha
As mentioned earlier the commander has decided it is needed to maintain good order and discipline .... It is as simple as that to make it a military requirement. Im not trying to argue just trying to make it clear that the deck is stacked against anyone who is not the commander. If they can knowingly and lawfully order you to your death there are few limiting factors on orders usually around property money and sex.
I dont disagree with you.
There may be an ethical dilemma but legally its all be hashed out in different ways, transgender policy was one, soldiers refusing to deploy over ethical concerns about why we are at war, etc.
This is all fallout from the Obama era when he gutted our ranks an instilled "yes" men and kiss ass officers while kicking out seasoned veterans who brought reason to college indoctrinated good idea fairy dumb fuckes. What can you do? Insurgency, be the change you wish to see on the world and stick around longer than the LIFERs be the voice of reason, care about your soldiers. Stay healthy and stay safe, cross your Ts and dot your lower case Js.
more infoThere is an argument that acommander has decided that the training is needed to maintain "good order and discipline" a vague discretion granted to a commander that is rarely questioned.
Theres lots of case law regarding your sergeant scenario. That would not be a good comparison as it involves a sex act and opens LOTS of legal issues/aggrivating factors and less about lawfulness of the orders. The elements in the UCMJ are pretty clear.
From article 90, not sure which year MCM (on mobile) could change slightly on who is giving the order but not much. " Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as the one that directs the commission of a crime. (ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service (iii) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.(iv) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order."
Military courts tend to error on the side of tradition and upholding command authority.
Jaggernaut here. Thats not totally accurate. They can and will order you to sit in training, not the route to go. Record and voice your thoughts and reinforce that what they are saying is NOT normal. Not legal adivce
Whats the original channel?