Playing ‘Gotcha’ on ‘Illegal’ Nuke Order Unwittingly Supports Premise behind Oath Keepers

Gen. John Hyten explains the principle of unlawful orders and the legal duty to not blindly follow them, the very thing Oath Keepers is condemned for. (Halifax International Security Forum screenshot)

“Top general says he would resist ‘illegal’ nuke order from Trump,” CBS News practically crowed Saturday. “Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Saturday that he has given a lot of thought to what he would say if a president ordered a strike he considered unlawful.

“Hyten was responding to a question about testimony by former STRATCOM commander retired Gen. Robert Kehler before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week. Kehler said that nuclear operators would refuse to implement an unlawful order,” the report elaborates. “Hyten agreed, and argued that the process in place to launch a nuclear strike would prevent such a situation from arising in the first place. As head of STRATCOM, Hyten is responsible for overseeing the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

See for yourself what he said:

“I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do,” Hyten explained. “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, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

“If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life,” Hyten noted.

And as the saying goes, the crowd went wild, if by “crowd” you mean “media.”

CNN presented it as “push back” from “anxiety over Trump.” Slate characterized the scenario as resulting from “rogue orders from the President of the United States.” And the desired effect is exemplified by “progressive” comment posters over at Common Dreams (and all over the internet).

But what did Hyten say that was really “news”? You might criticize him for appearing at the globalist policy wonk version of “The View” (the left criticizes the event because it doesn’t redistribute wealth to its preferred beneficiaries), but plenty of ruling elites avail themselves of the chance to establish their gravitas within the international community. The bottom line is, he didn’t just volunteer the information as an “in your face” to his Commander-in-Chief, he was responding to a question, and what’s more, he responded correctly.

The left, it seems, is more than willing to forego civilian control of the military and accept a standing army ruling junta as long as the coup is against Donald Trump. That they treat Hyten’s response as some sort of revelation shows how ignorant most are of how things are supposed to work.

Nuremberg Trials: How did the “just following orders” defense work out for these guys?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice mandates a requirement to “obey [a] lawful order.” With the Constitution being the “supreme Law of the Land,” and with all service members having taken an oath “to support and defend” it, disobeying unlawful orders becomes a legal and moral imperative.

“I was just following orders” is not an excuse for committing evil. That said, it can take an extraordinary act of courage by extraordinary patriots to disobey such orders, as the “safe” thing to do is follow, and as challenging “authority,” however false, can result in vengeful retribution.

So naturally, the same media cheering on the prospect of military leadership rebelling against a president they loathe are also the ones ridiculing and spreading the lie that Oath Keepers are “anti-government extremists.”

And their grave offense?

In what Opposite Day Bizarro World is this “anti-government extremism”?

Like Gen. Hyten, they realize that some orders cannot be obeyed if their oath is to be honored, with the first and foremost being:

“We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.”

Oh, but Hyten’s an important general! He knows things and is more knowledgeable than the average service member, who’s just not qualified to make that call, some will counter.

No?

Contrary to what a legal priestcraft would have us believe, the Constitution was not written for elites, and at the time it was being considered and debated, defenses and counter-arguments were being spread throughout the states, largely via the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. That was so that the people could understand and provide informed consent to what was being proposed.

How meaningless would an oath to the Constitution be if the person taking it had no comprehension of what it was he was swearing to?

The general approval Hyten’s answer is being greeted with just goes to show us that it’s not the concept of disobeying unlawful orders that those who would fundamentally transform America object to, but who’s doing the disobeying. Those they approve of will be lauded as heroic. Those who stand in the way of their agenda will be condemned as “treasonous.”

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

 

The post Playing ‘Gotcha’ on ‘Illegal’ Nuke Order Unwittingly Supports Premise behind Oath Keepers appeared first on Oath Keepers.

‘Bristling’ Response Merely an Attempt to Counter Lies with Truth

This is objectionable and wrong? And “hateful” and “anti-government”? Since when? And who says so?

“The Oath Keepers bristle, in posts like this one on their site pertaining to the planned rallies here, at being called a ‘militia’ force or being called ‘anti-government,’” SFist editor-in-chief Jay Barrman presumes. His Wednesday piece, filed under “News,” seems dismissive of the group’s non-racist bona fides, and appears to be fishing for something, anything else worthy of “progressive” condemnation.

First off, it wasn’t “bristling.”  I know, because I wrote the piece Barrman linked to, and know my state of mind and intent.  True, it’s tiresome being subjected every day to media-promulgated lies about Oath Keepers being haters and a militia and anti-government. It would be nice if honesty prevailed so that there’d be no need to repeatedly correct the record and cite the Bylaws, only to see that met by deliberate indifference by those not interested in truths that challenge their preferred narrative.

But presenting those truths can hardly be fairly characterized as a reaction of aggressiveness and anger. It would appear ideological self-defense is just as frowned upon in some quarters as the physical kind.

Instead, Barrman evidently equates the right to keep and bear arms with “intimidation,” disregarding how Oath Keepers have on numerous occasions proven that their presence has instead deterred destruction and violence.

“The group’s oath says, broadly, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Barrman writes, apparently unaware that it’s not just “the group’s oath.”

Should all orders be obeyed?

“And they have a list of various orders they will not obey, which include states of martial law, and ‘orders to disarm the American people,’” Barrman adds, as if the “Orders We Will Not Obey” declaration is somehow a bad thing. Note he doesn’t say what, if anything, he actually disagrees with.

A question critics never address is “How can anyone take the oath if they don’t understand what it means?”  For too many, it’s a mindless ceremonial formality required by the job.  And for the critics, treating the oath as a big deal is something to be disparaged.

For those who are dismissive, the question becomes “What orders would you not obey?” Bearing in mind that the “Nuremberg defense” didn’t save real Nazis from the gallows, and that a requirement for orders to be “lawful” means unlawful orders should not be obeyed, that’s a question all serious-minded Americans should consider — for themselves, for their representatives, and for the enforcers supposedly serving and protecting them.

Based on many of the ignorant and hateful responses about Oath Keepers under Barrman’s article that resort to insults, libels and lies, it doesn’t look like there are too many serious-minded Americans commenting over at SFist.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”