[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike
Source: Fox News
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 20, 2017
Author: Oliver North
Post Date: 2017-11-20 16:22:19 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 1496
Comments: 24

General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike

Fox News military analyst Oliver North reacts on 'Fox & Friends.'

Just a day after the U.S.’s top nuclear commander said he would resist President Trump’s order if he called for an “illegal” nuclear launch, a fiery debate emerged about the president’s authority to order the firing of a warhead.

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order.

"And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

Air Force General John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), started the debate when he told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada that he had thought a lot about what to say if he received such an order.

“And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I‘m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

Hyten said running through scenarios of how to react in the event of an illegal order was standard practice, and added: “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life.”

It's hard to overstate how thoroughly the U.S. military has prepared for doomsday -- the day America gets into a nuclear shooting war. No detail seems to have been overlooked. There's even a designated "safe escape" door at the nuclear-warfighting headquarters near Omaha, Nebraska, through which the four- star commander would rush to a getaway plane moments before the first bomb hit.

Procedures are in place for ensuring U.S. nuclear weapons are ready for a presidential launch order in response to -- or in anticipation of -- a nuclear attack by North Korea or anyone else. There are backup procedures and backups for the backups.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president.

A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys.

The renewed attention on these questions reflects unease -- justified or not -- about Trump's temperament and whether he would act impulsively in a crisis.

This past week's Senate hearing was the first in Congress on presidential authority to use nuclear weapons since 1976, when a Democratic congressman from New York, Richard L. Ottinger, pushed for the U.S. to declare it would never initiate a nuclear war. Ottinger said he wanted to "eliminate the prospect that human ignorance and potential human failure in the use of nuclear materials, especially nuclear weapons, will lead to the destruction of civilization."

Forty-one years later, the U.S. hasn't ruled out first-strike nuclear options and is unlikely to do so during Trump's tenure. This troubles experts who worry about a president with the sole -- some say unchecked -- authority to initiate nuclear war.

The committee chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he was not targeting Trump. But he has publicly questioned whether Trump's aggressive rhetoric toward North Korea and other countries could lead the U.S. into a world war. In the end, Corker's hearing produced little impetus for legislation to alter the presidential authorities.

James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, saw politics at play.

"But I think it's a genuinely important subject, and I think it's one we should be debating irrespective of who the president is," he said


Poster Comment:

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

False implication. --- This is yet another effort to tar Trump as a madman.. ---

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.

#5. To: tpaine (#0)

General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer?

Why is this even still in the news?

sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-20   19:51:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: sneakypete (#5)

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer?

We are in violent agreement.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-21   10:09:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6) (Edited)

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order.

If Trump reassigns the guy because of that statement the press will have a field day, claiming Trump expects his generals to obey illegal orders.

But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-11-21   11:29:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#7) (Edited)

But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER. If this is not the case, then it is an illegal order to be disregarded. SIMPLE.

There is a definite protocol that must be followed at all levels from the crew members up to and including the President. I can detail the protocol to you, but then I must shoot you….just kidding.

The aircrew I was assigned to for eight years lived 24/7 every third week in an alert bunker within a few yards of a B-58 Hustler loaded with five nukes and we were ready to get airborne in a few minutes on the way to our assigned targets.

Everyone at all levels from the air crews up to an including the President operates under the “Two-Man Policy.” That is to say that two people must validate or issue a launch order before any launch is executed. My navigator and I had to validate a launch message before our pilot was authorized to take off. We ignored an “illegal” order at least once during a tour of alert duty and sometimes as many as two or three. These were issued to keep us on our toes and ready to immediately react. There were always two individuals on duty at our Command Post and when they received an alert for an incoming message….they would sound klaxons and we would man our aircraft with engines started and awaiting a message. If the message was invalid [illegal] we would shut down the engines and return to the alert barracks. Had the message been valid [legal] we would have launched and proceeded a holding point awaiting another message to proceed on to our targets.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president. A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys.

Bullshit. Click on Protocol….this is essentially accurate.

Highlighted from the link …

As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. A two-man rule applies, however: the National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

Poster’s comment from the thread …

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

Bad implication!

McKeon didn’t only “rub his chin,” he pulled this out of his ass. The commander in chief CAN be thwarted….by the secretary of defense.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-21   16:16:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Gatlin (#10)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Maybe.

It is putatively legal under the laws of the United States.

But that's not the end of the discussion if it happens. If the American nuclear attack is in violation of international law and constitutes a war crime, merely complying with the lawful (within the US system) order does not protect the war criminal from being tried and executed for the crime against international law and the law of war.

Also, the President and the SecDef could be mad, or could be treasonous. So complying with their order would not be lawful even if it appeared to be lawful when issued.

Of course, under such a circumstance, the US government would not prosecute the military people who obeyed what they thought to be a lawful order, but the individuals might be tried and convicted by international tribunals.

After all, the fact that what the Nazi prison guards was doing was completely lawful under the laws of Germany at the time does not save them from trial and execution under international law.

Essentially, if you launch nuclear weapons, you had better win, and you had better not get too comfortable about foreign travel afterwards.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-25   16:18:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 18.

#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Maybe.

It is putatively legal under the laws of the United States.

There is no “maybe” about it and there is nothing “putatively” legal about an order if it comes from the Commander in Chief, is authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and is not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal. It is not “commonly accepted, supposed, assumed to exist or to have existed [putatively].” It is “emphatically” accepted as a legal order if it comes from the Commander in Chief, is authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and is not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal.
Also, the President and the SecDef could be mad, or could be treasonous. So complying with their order would be lawful if it appeared to be lawful when issued and was not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal.
If you check, you will find that under international and U.S. law, the order must be “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal, not just debatable or of arguable legality. What this means is that the person ordered to launch or to plan the launch must know that the order did not come from the President, was not authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and was “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal in order not to comply with it.
After all, the fact that what the Nazi prison guards was doing was completely lawful under the laws of Germany at the time does not save them from trial and execution under international law.
I will take exception to that characterization. Those laws issued to prison guards who were convicted for war crimes were “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal even though there were “lawful” under the laws of Germany at the time. That is why they were convicted and that is why there were not saved from trial and were executed under international law.
If the American nuclear attack is in violation of international law and constitutes a war crime, merely complying with the lawful (within the US system) order does not protect the war criminal from being tried and executed for the crime against international law and the law of war.
Again I cite that Under international and U.S. law, the order must be “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal, not just of debatable or arguable legality.
But that's not the end of the discussion if it happens.
Ah, but this the end of the discussion for me here because this thread is about General Hyten saying he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike and this thread is not about international law or what constitutes a war crime.

I have no desire to go into that discussion and If you want to discuss violation of international law and what constitutes a war crime….that probably should be the subject for new thread.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-25 21:05:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

You sound like a liberal regularly. Now you're a globalist too.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-26 08:24:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com