Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbhjpbhj | Hacker News Reader

This demonstrates a break down of democratic order IMO.

If the president is incapable, as Nixon was in your description (and in https://www.alternet.org/drugs/huge-role-alcohol-has-played-... linked down-thread), then there's a procedure wherein the VP takes over, isn't there? Not performing this procedure is deciding to contradict the democratic will of the people.

Now, I can see how you might not want to publicly remove the president in a military crisis situation; but the way it was done seems completely wrong, just assuming power without due process, countermanding the president whilst they remain the president .. (as Nixon was CinC surely that's reason for a Court Marshall?)

Did the people ever react to that, have anyone punished? Or are the USAmerican people happy to have a VP secretly assuming power, a Secretary of Defence that chooses when to obey orders, etc?

View on HN

In theory that's how it works, but removing the president needs VP and majority of the cabinet must agree. After that 2/3rd of the Senate must agree. If Consensus can't be achieved, things become worse than before.

Democratic order, democracy and the law pale in significance compared to the need for the nation to survive or human race to to survive in the worst case.

When the global nuclear war is on the table, I hope that everyone involved understands that all vows and laws should go out of the window if need be. Only thing that matters is preventing the war, whatever means necessary. Even murder is morally acceptable.

The president always has the option to dismiss any of his cabinet secretaries, so it's not really a breakdown of the democratic order.

On the scale of the presidency not carrying out some particular bombing raid is like some minion in an office setting not complying with an order from his boss because he knows it's the right thing. You're somewhat risking your job, and if the boss really cared he could get it done with or without your malicious non-compliance.

Remember that cabinet officers and military personnel take an oath to uphold the constitution of the US and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" Fealty to country supercedes following orders, always.

Sure, we on the sidelines remember, but do the current crop of cabinet officers and military personnel?

NO, this is NOT a simple instance of "breakdown of democratic order".

Also, all military personnel are not only allowed to disobey any unlawful order, they have a DUTY to do so. Trumps order to kill Assad is an example. [1]

Moreover even with potentially legal orders, there are orders that present military professionals with moral dilemmas, "...decisions wherein the needs of the institution appear to weigh on both sides of the equation. Whether the issuer of the order is a superior officer or a civilian leader, the same principles apply. In the face of such a dilemma, the military professional must make a decision, which cannot simply owe its justification to the principle of obedience, and must take responsibility for that decision. " [2]

It was rather firmly established at Nuremberg that "following orders" is no excuse for immoral or illegal behavior. Up and down the chain of command, every person is expected to take responsibility for their actions. Those actions may include modifying or refusing to implement orders. The consequences may be anything from commendation or promotion to court martial or death.

Yes, they are taking a risk in countermanding the POTUS/CIC. They are also exercising responsibility.

[1] http://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-l...

[2]https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking_ranks_dissent_an...

I was trying to avoid being too verbose and hitting too many side issues, which is hard.

The crux of it as I see it is that if you decide your orders aren't legal, then your SO surely should be relieved of command, isn't that the proper process? Not relieving them of command, but "simply" choosing to not follow some orders is breaking the visibility of who is in charge. In the case of the president the people aren't being informed that their elected nominee (or the electoral college that they voted in's nominee) is no longer in charge -- this is why I consider it a breakdown in democratic order. Not that the orders were countermanded, but that it was covered up.

Now, as I said you may not want it to be public immediately; but executive/cabinet members should be aware, and their should be official record and once the immediate crisis has passed then there would need to be a process to follow to keep the incapable/immoral officer (eg POTUS) out of command and quickly establish a new figurehead/leader.

Yes, I agree that the ideal standard is holding responsible the person making the bad orders, and relieving them of duty.

That said, it is often impractical, or would create too much of a problem. E.g., the person currently occupying the President's chair and CIC title, is apparently issuing illegal orders (e.g., 'kill Assad'). The ideal solution is the 25th Amendment to relieve him of duty. The problem is that this requires the VP, majority of the Cabinet, then 2/3 of the Senate to execute. Even bigger hurdle for impeachment

This will simply not happen in today's environment, so what is someone in Mattis' position to do? Simply follow orders and become complicit in the crime, or find a way to undo them?

One of the key lessons I learned from several people I worked with who had held US Mil command positions, was that leadership is NOT about giving orders -- many civilians think that mil leadership is easy because of the Chain of Command and orders.

If you think that, then the best case is that you order "Do X" and your second in command says "Do what the chief says" -- i.e., he adds zero value. Leadership is about making those under your command want to execute your orders to the best of their ability.

The person currently occupying the President's chair fails miserably at that basic standard, the party supports his every move for a variety of reasons. Therefore, those under his command are stuck with workarounds.

> This will simply not happen in today's environment, so what is someone in Mattis' position to do?

The man has a press secretary. He could resign today, talk about this, and actively campaign for impeachment. The man has a pension, it’s not his god given right to be a cabinet member. Nobodys asking him to shoot his mother.

Not only would this be a Big Fucking Deal, it also forces stuff like congress passing more laws to prevent attempted beheadings of foreign governments.

Principles only exist if you’re willing to pay a personal cost to enforce them. Otherwise it’s just lip service.

By taking the steps you propose, Mattis would promptly eliminate his ability to do any good, and likely fail at preventing the harm he is trying to prevent.

And yes, if the person occupying the President's chair had actually given a specific direct order, as in "As President, I'm hereby ordering you specifically to implement a plan to attack and kill another head of state, specifically Bashir Al Assad; do it by next week or I'll relieve you of duty and court martial you for insubordination", Mattis would have little choice to either comply, resign, or wait for the MPs to arrest him.

However, it is extremely unlikely that the order was that specific, and so both creates the moral dilemma referenced above, and the opportunity to use discretion in how the request is implemented.

And even if such a "Big Fucking Deal" happened, in this environment, it's a fart in a hurricane, and if you actually expect this congress to act as you expected, perhaps we should talk about this bridge I have for sale...

We have the same thing going on right now, but without the excuse of novelty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com