WTF!

[Sicarii]

On 7/28/2017 at 10:24 AM, DrmDoc said:

I thought about what I found so disturbing about the admiral's response and it seems to be the lack of some qualifier in his answer.  True, he shouldn't answer this sort of hypothetical question in open forum about the use of our most powerful weapons against a nation with which we are not in military conflict. However, Adm. Swift's unqualified "yes" to the launching of nukes on order from the president suggests to me that he would do so whether the order was provoked or unprovoked, legal or illegal.  As some have argued here, our soldiers are only bound by commands that have a legal basis and, for me, that is a basis rooted in universally acceptable provocations of war.  Without qualifying his answer, the admiral essentially said that crimes against humanity be damn and he would follow an illegal, unprovoked directive it so ordered.  It's tantamount to being a baby killer--as some Vietnam veterans have been accused of being--if so ordered.  If the admiral had to answer that idiotic question, he certainly should have qualified that answer with a yes to and a legal order from the president.  This president has already demonstrated his penchant for issuing illegal orders (i.e., his immigration ban), which doesn't inspire much confidence in me in his competency as commander and chief of our military.

I agree, the Admiral did not qualify his answer, and he should've in the face of such a loaded question. Without qualification and taking his statement at face-value, then your following conclusion is correct, "the admiral essentially said that crimes against humanity be damn and he would follow an illegal, unprovoked directive it so ordered."

Going beyond that, however, the Admiral's motives or perspective in answering the question is unknown. He could very well be against your conclusion (and probably is), yet his manner in answering the question suggested otherwise, for one reason or another.

Furthermore, I do not like your comparison of travel ban to use of nuclear weapons. It's like comparing possession of marijuana to serial murders... "well, they're both crimes!"

[MigL]

Not sure I understand your definition of 'legal', DrmDoc.

Had the courts let it pass, the immigration ban would have been perfectly legal.
And they have given the go-ahead for a more limited ban, so it will be legal.

Immoral maybe, but once law, certainly legal.

[DrmDoc]

13 hours ago, Sicarii said:

Furthermore, I do not like your comparison of travel ban to use of nuclear weapons. It's like comparing possession of marijuana to serial murders... "well, they're both crimes!"

The comparison was only in the sense of it being an example of this administration's attempt to execute an illegal directive, which this administration has done, rather than it being the equivalent of a nuclear order.  I don't think this administration particularly cares what is and isn't legal given its efforts to undermine the investigation of it's staff potentially illegal collusion with foreign interference in our electoral process.

 

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Not sure I understand your definition of 'legal', DrmDoc.

Had the courts let it pass, the immigration ban would have been perfectly legal.
And they have given the go-ahead for a more limited ban, so it will be legal.

Immoral maybe, but once law, certainly legal.

The subsequent illegality of the original order surely suggests this administration doesn't clearly understand the definition of "legal" either.  However, admittedly, the limited ban may meet the standard of legality set by our courts.