US Military newspaper editor voices censorship fears after being fired
bbc.com
bbc.com
This is not some wild far right maga conspiracy theory to think that the military must be subservient to and separate from the government, just because the Americans elected a president we don't like.
You seem to think the US government is a single monolithic entity. It isn't. Laws are passed by Congress. The Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces does not create laws. The issue under discussion, which you apparently don't understand, is the obligations of members of the armed forces in the increasingly likely situation that the the Commander-in-Chief gives orders that contradict the law.
Strawman. That is an invention entirely of your imagination. Nowhere did I claim or imply this.
> orders that contradict the law.
They are to be subservient to civilian government at all times, yes. If the civilian government breaks down then obviously they are in a difficult position but usurping the laws or processes of the government is not their obligation.
I'm actually flabbergasted that the "enlightened minds" on here don't have the slightest clue why the military should be subservient to the democratically elected civilian government, apparently some don't even know what the term liberal democracy means, yet have no trouble pontificating like know it all techbros.
You and every politician in history on the losing side of a military coup can scream "that's illegal" till the cows come home, it won't change a thing.
This is a thread about unfolding defiance within the chain of command, in the context of the worst military defeat in US history. If you don't believe ruptures can ever happen you should probably just ignore this story and the increasing tempo of others like it.
Pardon, what? The US officially lost 58,220 military personnel in Vietnam prior to withdrawing from that conflict and losing every one of its objectives. We lost 2,402 people in Afghanistan which, notably, is once again under the control of the Taliban.
The US has lost 20 service members in the current war against Iran, and the war has not to this point ended in an American withdrawal or defeat.
To say this is the worst military defeat in US history would be factually ludicrous if it were said in good faith, but obviously it's not. It's not what the Stars and Stripes editors were saying. The only people peddling that line of BS are authoritarian dictatorships, including the one we're engaged in conflict with. Repeating it as if it were fact is either (a) incredibly misinformed or (b) wilfully spreading enemy propaganda. I'm going with (b). Including your wild assertion that the chain of command is unraveling, you must be either getting your news from the state television station of the Islamic Republic, or working for them.
You don't understand the oath then.
---
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.
---
One very important part of this oath that every officer and senior enlisted will point out, is that it covers the Constitution first, and lawful orders of the President second.
"I, [name], 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."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Servic...
If this is the thinking amongst MAGA then maybe that explains Trump's actions in the second term.
You could always look it up if you're curious.
> but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
I am more concerned that this change means the troubles our servicemembers are having with base HVA/C or water supplies may go unreported, than the risk of some kind of cultural conformity.
Forgive me for saying so, but it's basically state media. It's purpose more or less is to facilitate coverups and limited hangouts. This story is notable for the same reasons Colbert being cancelled was notable, it's a dispute within the mainstream / elite media.
Incidentally, that is why they are being targeted now, because of their reporting on the living conditions aboard US aircraft carriers during the Iran war.
100% is not a low bar lol
> it is not an outlet for political or strategic criticism of US foreign policy and never has been
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Don't expect them to remain accurate should the stream of "accidental laundry fires" escalate into a real strategic vulnerability
TONS
You saying this shows an extreme level of ignorance on this topic, to be fair.
(How you respond to these little transgressions will determine whether your society will recover to normal or slide further into ruin)
The alleged reason for being fired, FTA:
> Slavin says he believes he was fired for having stated in an interview that "in a hypothetical situation, censorship would be a red line".
A perfectly OK comment, which could be made by anyone in any reasonable Western organization, government, for-profit, or non-profit. Except the West is no more. Or, apparently, without the USA. Possibly, just for now. Who knows?