The insults to us actual Americans never end.
Let the G-damned self-worshipping, America hating, muzzie liar burn in bacon fat; now or in the afterlife.
Nasty message to follow.
Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — November 20, 2012 @ 9:58 am
I vuss just not-following orders.
Comment by DougM (Well, thaaat sucked!) — November 20, 2012 @ 10:59 am
Has anyone revealed sources or got this from someone other than “Gerard Direct” (who TF?)?
As much as I think there’s something to it, I need more than this to go on. Especially since the claim is that Panetta announced it on Sunday, which is not only not published anywhere else but just implausible. A Sunday press conference confessing something horrible from a guy famous for flying home *every* weekend at huge expense?
For some time now, I’ve sort of banked on US military personnel, particularly the officers, remembering that their oath is to the Constitution and not to the government of the day, so that when it hits the fan and they’re ordered to shoot US citizens, they will refuse.
The fact that so many obeyed an order to stand down in this case is not comforting at all.
I now yield the floor to the honourable Col Jerry (who has NOT forgotten what honour is), along with any other US vets, for any comments they may wish to offer.
Comment by Lord of the Fleas — November 20, 2012 @ 8:54 pm
Wait… did I go ’round the bend while I wasn’t looking or what, here?
Did that just say [badly] that Ham was relieved for disobeying the order NOT to help in Banghazi? The order from the Pentagon?!? Which would mean Panetta – right?
And it was written on OCTOBER 28 — that would be before that election-thingie we had, wouldn’t it? So why has no one ever heard of this?
Wasn’t Ham’s relief supposed to be from calling that Kelly …socialite “sweetheart” or some such?
Oh screw this; I think *someone* is trying to gaslight me. I’m going to go make some merangue mushrooms.
Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — November 20, 2012 @ 11:06 pm
It gets technical. General Ham, as Commander USAFRICOM, has authority only over those US forces within the boundaries of his AOR, which starts at the North African coastline and goes south. Anything in the Mediterranean (such as the forces at Sigonella, or any Navy vessels in the Med) are under the authority of the Commander, USEUCOM.
Unless EUCOM and AFRICOM have some pre-canned arrangements to transfer forces in emergencies, only the SecDef can authorize a transfer of forces between the commands.
Nothing stops a combatant commander (Ham’s title) from leaning forward and cocking forces within his AOR to react. However, depending on what’s prearranged (e.g., existing treaties and agreements), he may be forbidden from moving forces between countries within his AOR without authorization. Think about it: sending military forces into a sovereign country without their prior permission is called an invasion; the diplomats tend to take a dim view of that. So the State Department would also likely have a say in sending forces into Libya.
As I said, it gets technical.
Comment by Fat Baxter — November 21, 2012 @ 8:05 am
Remember, the oath also includes a requirement to obey the “lawful orders” from those above. In the absence of evidence to the contrary or of clear illegality, one’s orders are presumed “lawful.” One usually doesn’t have the time or the information needed to legitimately refuse an order. (Nuremberg was never about single incidences of “just following orders,” it was about demonstrating willingness.)
“Support and defend the Constitution” is a clear statement that one’s military loyalty is not to the individual at the head of the gov’t.
(see: German soldiers swearing allegiance to Hitler, personally.)
American soldiers have been ordered to kill Americans in the past, and they have complied. There’s no reason to think that can’t happen again.
That being said, the nature of the administration has changed away from a traditional US Executive, and a lot of professional military officers have noticed that.
On the other hand, the purge and politicization of the senior-officer corps has been proceeding for four years. In another four, perhaps a critical mass will have been achieved. Who knows?
Point is … some will certainly shoot, if ordered to do so.
Comment by DougM (Well, thaaat sucked!) — November 21, 2012 @ 11:56 am
Ham remains in his command, this story is false. Still.
Comment by staghounds — November 21, 2012 @ 4:24 pm
I thought the “lawful orders” part was only in the enlisted oath; that the officers swear to defend the Constitution etc with no mention of obeying orders or authority.
Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — November 21, 2012 @ 6:19 pm
“Point is … some will certainly shoot, if ordered to do so.”
DougM, that’s where the problem is. An O-3 can give the order to “start kicking in doors and taking firearms” away from law-abiding Americans. His subordinate mid-career SNCO can say “Oh, HELL no!” and put down his weapon.
Then what? Yeah, the failure to follow an order will get ironed out at a (future) court-martial, but what about the immediate (that day) effects? What is that even-more-subordinate E5- E6 gonna do? Does he follow the O-3′s maybe-illegal orders or the example of the SNCO?
And dick, not quite dead white guy, I remember “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” as well as “obey the orders of the officers appointed over me” in the oaths I took over the years. As near as I can tell, the oaths didn’t have an expiration date, just a time after which I was no longer required to do it for a living.
I consider myself extremely fortunate that during my career I was never faced with a conflict such as DougM and I have described, and for that, I am thankful.
Comment by rickn8or — November 21, 2012 @ 11:29 pm