Hacker News Reader

Comment by zozbot234 | Hacker News Reader

That military apparatus is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not support the current president.

This only matters if people care enough to act appropriately when that is broken.

I guess we'll see what matters when Trump orders the tanks to roll into Canada.

This wouldn’t happen today. Today there is talk about Canada becoming 51st state; there is relatively little opposition to that - on the contrary, the perception of Canada as a US ally drops in the US[1]. Four more years of this and I could see people similarly accepting tanks. And if you want to prevent this, the time to act is now.

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-poll-allies-enemies-friends...

Surely no one currently in power wants Canadians to vote in U.S. Federal elections? So it has to be a setup like Puerto Rico (U.S. citizenship without representation in Washington) or even American Samoa (no U.S. citizenship). The 51st state thing does not make sense at all.

90% oppose the idea. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-eh-who-are-the-canadians-...

The Constitution isn't worth much right now, and it's up for sale, no less.

I wonder if Elon will acquire it with shares.

I mean, he did pay people directly for voting in the last round of primaries and he's doing it again for that judge election in Wisconsin, and all his money is Tesla shares so.. yes, he's already doing it.

Even though the world is turning upside down, the fact that this is possible without facing immediate arrest is still surprising. I don't think this is possible in any other democracy.

He didn't pay them to vote. He paid them for signing a pledge. He had no way to determine who they voted for.

I really wish for this theory to be tested TBH. Martial law in US would be a great thing. US economy tanks, rest of the world like Europe is forced to pick up the slack, the world gets a refresh on what conservative "small government" brainrot does to countries.

Got some good examples from the past?

WWII?

It won't be like that. You'll slide further towards Putin/Erdogan state management and oligarchy. Hints of it already in how AP and The Atlantic are being treated, and the hints about what a future judicial system might look like.

Let's be realistic: Congress has given away its power for decades. It is nowadays a Congress permanently divided and pretty much non-functional.

Congress has never had the power to command the military, that's not one of the powers granted to it in the constitution.

Congress has the power to declare a war, which was supposed to prevent the Executive from taking any military action that was not purely defensive, without their approval. There was even a requirement about how long the President had to give an accounting to Congress about any action they did take. So yes, Congress was supposed to have the ability to "command" the military insomuch as they could choose whether the Executive could utilize them or not. Saying "no, you're not going to do that" is an authoritative command.

Hamilton, Washington, and Madison all separately wrote that Section 8's War Declaration clause was intended to be a substantial limit on the President's power. Even the small, mini-conflicts in the 1800s required Congressional approval to initiate, it wasn't until the 1950s that the Executive branch destroyed that check on Executive power.

By command I meant that Congress cannot tell the military "go arrest the president" or "go quell the unrest in that state." I agree that Congress has ceded too much power to the Executive in regard to declaration of war/military action in foreign countries after 9/11 though.

Trump may be Commander in Chief, but he cannot start a war without Congress' approval.

Unfortunately, they've essentially given more or less blanket approval for various wars and war-like actions since before 9/11, and that approval keeps getting renewed every year.

He can't start a war, but what about special military operations?

The advent of nuclear weapons arguably negated Congress's power to withhold approval for war. Garry Wills writes about this in his book Bomb Power.

No, this is a rationalization.

The commenter also included past presidents, which is silly. Once a president is a past president, he no longer controls that military apparatus.

The U.S. will never allow any former president to get prosecuted because the precedent is too severe.

By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Trump should have been prosecuted the moment he left office for a spectrum of crimes. There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants.

But power protects power, and the moment that seal is broken all hell breaks loose amongst the ruling class.

How many people were held accountable for the 2008 crash? Zero. That would mean everyone else has to stop their criming too.

Who knows, maybe Trump is stupid and petty enough to take revenge on his enemies. If he does, no doubt his entire administration is the next against the wall as soon as the winds change.

Nixon certainly would've been prosecuted if he hadn't been pardoned.

> There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants.

I don't think this is very strong at all. There is zero evidence that Obama intentionally targeted civilians outside of al-Awlaki. Suggesting that he did, and that he should be prosecuted for war crimes, puts him in the same moral category as those who ordered actual torture on enemy combatants and launched wars on fabricated evidence. It's preposterous.

War crimes are a very broad category, so no, it's not preposterous to claim that different people are both guilty of them even if the scope varies significantly.

Obama pardoned all the torturers and their instigators. He is in the same category.

I strongly disagree with that equivalency. Obama should have pursued accountability instead of pardoning them like he did, but I do not agree that it puts him in the same moral category. Your framing shifts the argument from "Obama maybe deserves some scrutiny here" to "Obama belongs in the same cells with the torturers."

You're collapsing several degrees of responsibility with this lazy equivalence, and minimizing the heinousness of the people who actually designed and executed torture programs.

The world has no shortage of evil bastards. The only thing that restrains them is the knowledge that they may be held to account. Obama undermined that.

"Don't worry, we've got your back. If your country asks you to do evil, we won't hold you to account. So go right ahead."

Who is worse? The criminal or the corrupt judge?

> There is zero evidence that Obama intentionally targeted civilians outside of al-Awlaki.

So... there is evidence he intentionally targeted a civilian?

Sorry, I actually meant to write that al-Awlaki was a citizen, as in an American citizen. Obama didn't intentionally target civilians, and he didn't intentionally target "citizens" as OP stated outside of al-Awlaki who was an American citizen turned insurgent.

But trump was prosecuted. He was found guilty.

It's just that in the meantime the rule of law in the US died and he was elected again.

If there are elections in 2028 and MAGA loses he's toast. Big if.

You'll get him this time! After 9 years of failing.

Dammit, all we need is just one more chance!

The American justice system deserves to cease existing if 4 years isn’t enough to process people for possibly capital crimes (J6 coup attempt). No state can afford that.

Even if MAGA loses in 2028, I have very low confidence that Trump will see any consequences for his crimes. There's also the fun self-pardon-by-proxy trick: on the morning of the last day of his administration, he resigns. Vance is sworn in, pardons Trump for anything he's done, and then passes the presidency on to the next one.

Regardless, Trump is old. Even if he's convicted of something in 2030 or whenever, he probably won't go to prison. He may even be dead by then; he'll be nearly 85, and no matter what his doctors have been told to say publicly, it's hard to believe the man is in super great health.

I think the “big if” in the parent comment was about whether there would be elections in 2028, not whether Trump might lose them…

Trump was prosecuted.

They meant criminally prosecuted, which he was not.

Sure he was. He is a convicted felon, with 34 guilty counts under his belt[0]. You can't get convicted of felonies in a civil case. That was a criminal prosecution.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-te...

Trump was criminally prosecuted on both state (New York and Georgia) and federal charges, and convicted on New York state charges, before being re-elected. Because prosecution is an executive power exercised by the President, his re-election made it so that he would be President and thus unprosecutable by the time of trial on the federal charges for which there were still active prosecutions, resulting in them being dismissed without prejudice. (Technically, they could be refiled after he leaves office again.)

Concerns about Constitutional issues with state penalties interfering with federal duties also led the judge in the New York state case, where he was convicted of 34 felony charges, to sentence him to "unconditional discharge" -- essentially, he remains a convict, but faced no penalty beyond the fact of officially being a felony convict.

Issues relating to prosecutorial behavior have stalled Trump's prosecution on state criminal charges in Georgia, but those charges remain active (whether the prosecutor's office that was handling the case can continue to do so is an issue currently subject to appeal, and may not be decided for several months.)

You're right. I'm honestly not sure what I thinking.

… How did you miss the last year or so? I’m jealous.

> By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes.

According to the rules we put in place at Nuremburg, EVERY US President since World War 2 has committed war crimes.

That's a fantasy military leaders like to tell troops.

Let's hope we won't how that plays out against against the reality of having bills to pay and family members to take care of after enough layers of leadership has been replaced.

When there's no alternative nexus of power to rally around, they'll have no choice but to do whatever illegal thing they are told.

That only works until Trump finishes purging the upper ranks of the military, and then gets the Senate to promote Trump loyalists to take their place.

What is a "loyalist"? What president has not put in place people that are loyal to him?

A loyalist privileges their leader over their principles. A patriot is a leader that subordinates themselves to the principles shared with their followers.

In the context of this conversation, a loyalist is obviously someone who will disregard the law and the constitution if Trump orders them to do so.

Funny.

From what I have been told (specific to the US army):

- Enlisted swear oaths to the constitution and President

- Officers swear an oath to the constitution

I’ve only been told this, I don’t claim to know.

They swear that they will obey lawful orders from their commanders, all the way up to the President.

Who decides whether order is lawful or not?

A soldier comes to their own assessment then a court martial decides later on if they agree. Just like every other form of action: do what you believe is within bounds, then find out later if the courts agree

There are military lawyers for this. I seem to recall that Trump fired them last month.

You don't have lawyer in the trenches. You have an order, if you don't obey, you might be executed at place.

> You have an order, if you don't obey, you might be executed at place.

Uhhhh... not in the US (or any western) military you won't.

But if you're a soldier of the Klingon Empire, you might.

Real life is not like the movies. You aren't executed for disobeying or refusing an order in the US military.

Lawyers provide legal advice but are not judges.

By lawyer, I meant that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General%27s_Cor... . They also serve as judges, as far as I understand.

If the order is wrong, it's your fault for failing to know that.

If the order is valid, it's your fault for questioning it.

You‘re supposed to evaluate it in order to determine whether it’s wrong or not.

I believe that's exactly what the GP was saying.

> Who decides whether order is lawful or not?

The individual. If your boss orders you to do something illegal, it’s up to you to be sceptical and do your research. That’s the only way it can work without converting a part of the population to drones.

So why post it?

You can just google the oaths that people take.

- enlisted: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

> I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

- officers: https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html

> I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)

Which does match what GP said. Enlisted swear to defend the constitution and obey the president. No limitation to lawful orders or stated precedence between the too. Commissioned officers don't swear to obey the president

What do you mean "no limitation to lawful orders"? That's what "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" means. Article 92 is pretty explicit about what constitutes a lawful order.

It’s explicit about following orders according to the UCMJ, and the UCMJ clearly defines what constitutes a lawful order that must be followed.

So, it’s transitive, but the enlisted oath is limited to lawful orders.

Take a look at the Oath Keepers or the 3%ers and let me know if you think they are going to do the right thing here.

They took an oath to protect their interests. That’s it and that’s all.

I'll grant you that these militias are well-armed and have sketchy loyalties, but if the US military decided they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution, against Trump, they'd crush the Oath Keepers and their ilk.

Many of the members of those militias are themselves military or ex-military. Which already tells you volumes about how likely it is that all of the US military would "decide they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution". Besides, those guys don't think of what they are doing as contradicting the constitution - quite the opposite! They are very obviously wrong, but that has never stopped fanatics from believing in their creed.

The real question, anyway, is not whether the military will obey Trump's illegal orders, should he issue them. It's whether the military would do something to stop the militias if Trump lets them off the leash with an explicit mandate.

And my concern is that most of the lower-ranking officers and people below them will prefer to sit it out. Because if they do something, and it's not enough, they are all looking at actual treason charges and likely death sentences.

Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news?

Some light reading --> https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-a...

But it won't be their family members, in most cases. It will be some despicable "cultural Marxists" or even more abstract "terrorists". And the rapes? Fake news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com