That means he would.
No matter what he says he would. You don’t become a General by refusing orders.
And even if he would refuse he’d be removed from command and something willing to obey would replace him.
I’m not sure actually, because had he said he wouldn’t, they probably would have just discharged him.
He very clearly stated what he would do. He found the scenario ‘preposterous’, meaning ‘not possible’. He could not have stated with any more clarity that he and most of the American military officers above and below him would consider such an order as not legal. Further, he all but came right out and said that Trump, by his statements on the matter, are needlessly emotional.
There can be no doubt that his response was as strong a rebuke of Trump’s posturing as could be allowed.
So much for 1A I guess…
We need people at the top who will resist when the shit hits the fan. They should tread lightly to hang on to their position.
I condemn the ones who resign out of principle, they are the very people we need to stay in.
Why do you think so many generals and admirals got fired under trump?
Said it before and will say it again. This is why I feel running to another country you have to think about. We have this insanely large military and a lot of damage can be done with it. We need to protest and refuse to work and whatever else we can do.
Paparo, who serves as U.S. commander for the Indo-Pacific region, visibly took issue with the question. He said: “I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous.”
He added: “I follow the orders of the commander-in-chief, but that is a needlessly emotional question.”
Look at his left chest - a billboard of medals and citations. He didn’t get those by giving the wrong answer, or by basing his statements or actions on his personal opinion. His ‘preposterous’ statement would be a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. Here are some of the facts that are behind the factual ‘preposterous’ statement.
Any order that comes down the chain of command, keeps going down the chain of command. At every step of the way, the officers would have the option to follow the order by ‘advancing to the rear’.
From Google AI: Presumption of Legality: Routine orders carry a legal presumption of lawfulness, and a soldier must obey normal commands. However, that presumption breaks down when an order directs an overt, clear violation of domestic or international law (such as targeting unresisting civilians).
Also: The defense of “just following orders” (historically known as the Nuremberg defense) is not legally valid in the US military. If a soldier carries out an order that a person of “ordinary sense” would know is illegal—such as executing a surrendered enemy combatant—the soldier can be criminally prosecuted alongside the officer who gave the command.
Also: The Supremacy Clause: Article VI of the Constitution states that treaties made by the United States are part of the “supreme law of the land.”
Treaty Conflicts: If the U.S. has a formal treaty or defense pact with an ally, attacking that ally could violate U.S. treaty commitments, which hold the status of federal law.
Since both countries are members of NATO, any order to attack Canada from the Commander-in-Chief could easily be interpreted up and down the chain of command as an illegal order. This would put every soldier in the predicament of possibly being prosecuted for obeying such an order, right up and down the entire chain of command. It also presents the possibility of the POTUS being charged and convicted of the crime of issuing an illegal order. Thus, answering the question as stated is factually ‘preposterous’. The POTUS could not, as Commander-in-Chief, be reasonably seen as being able to give a legal order to attack Canada.
But it is also very clear that he is indirectly accusing Trump of being needlessly emotional in even insinuating the possibility that Trump could give such an illegal order.
You really shouldn’t trust the legal interpretations of an LLM. They’re frequently wrong, and, even more dangerously, they’re very, very good at making a wrong answer look right.
In this case, it does seem to be correct, though. The treaty clause has nuances in the way it’s interpreted, but according to the article they’re considered roughly equivalent to federal law. (Sorry for overlooking that and answering wrong elsewhere)
There’s still catches. Prosecution for following unlawful orders is light, and often rests on charging a perpetrator as if they were a private citizen. Violating an international treaty regarding diplomacy doesn’t really have much in the way of criminal penalties, and, even if they did, the NATO treaty doesn’t seem to have a “don’t attack other members” article. Like, it should, but it also doesn’t have a “remove members that attacked other members” clause, because that basically just wasn’t relevant when it was created. (BTW, looking over it, the US is already openly violating article 1 and part of 2)
But sure, if this guy refused to invade Canada, and was court martialled for it, it seems like he’d have a defence.
I have actually researched this in depth. The issue at the time was Greenland, not Canada, but the general principle still applies. Denmark is a NATO country. Article 1 clearly states that all disputes between members are to be resolved peacefully through negotiations. Here is an article discusses it in more depth.
Here is a rigorous legal clarification on the issue, that I am sure the general concept is familiar to all senior officers in the American armed forces.
And here is a legal brief on the principle that a peace treaty is the Law of the Land.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/16-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html
I sincerely doubt that an officer that has achieved his rank, position. and status would not be aware of all of these considerations when he claimed that the scenario was ‘preposterous’. I am sure these issues, given Trump’s emotional statements, have been thoroughly explored by officers in his, and more senior, positions. Their response to such an order would not be a knee jerk off the cuff on the spot response, but a response that has been well planned out and thoroughly vetted ahead of time.
Dude, if your commander orders you to invade Canada, hate to break it to you, but that’s lawful. Now if they tell you to use chemical weapons or target civilians you can push back on that. The law they are referring to is United States law and a couple of conventions like the Hague and Geneva conventions which cover war crimes. Other international law doesn’t count. Nato treaties don’t mean boo when it comes to the lawfulness of orders, nor should they.
No it is not. The Supreme Court of the United States made that perfectly clear. The NATO treaty is the Law of the Land. The POTUS can not ignore it. America can not by law attack a country that has a peace treaty.
There are no more laws in the US when it comes to what POTUS wants. trump can order the military to invade Canada (which is his constitutional power that grants him full immunity when he uses it), simultaneously issue a lifetime pardon for all US military service members, and no US court can legally prosecute anyone involved. The only hope is the Hague where I hope all living US presidents eventually end up.
I think he made it very clear as to what the military response would be if Trump ordered an invasion of Canada. The military pledges allegiance to the Constitution, not to the POTUS. He can only grant immunity to offenses against the United States. Murder is prosecuted at the state level. He can not offer blanket immunity in any case,and he cannot grant immunity ‘going forward’. This officer of the American armed forces has obviously done his due diligence, and has made a statement based on sound facts. He chose his wording carefully. Trump can not issue a legal order to attack Canada, and the officers collectively will refuse to follow an order that is not legal. End of discussion, as he made clear. Trump has obviously been made aware of that, given his concerns that the issue has become ‘overly emotional’.
Since when did they give a shit about things like law?
Since he can be imprisoned upon conviction, and conviction is a certainty.
So he may do it
Now that they charge themselves 100% tariff on drones …
Jokes aside, I say we should get ready. Everybody can gain or polish some relevant skills that come in handy if it comes to it.
Best case you have a new hobby, worst case we make their life miserable if they decide to try and attack us.
You better disobey or we’ll make sure that no one in the armed forces get any rights. We’d shoot you on sight along with anyone else that didn’t refuse the shitter in cheif. Behave and use your neglected moral compass.
easy to say
No it ain’t, I’ve been banned from so many places. I risk being cut off every time I say “hey go fight the real evil.” because people are such cowards.
I get everyone is making jokes here, but that is serious. Even if many of you genuinely believe Canada could contend with something like a US invasion, I don’t think most of us could bear the cost of even a short conflict. How many of you are already having a hard time affording to live here or have dependents?
There has to be a strong precedent that’s a lawful order.
If invading a country that it seems like you can’t justifiably invade counted, several recent American wars would be remembered quite differently.
AN order like “start bombing schools in Canada” would be a different matter. (Inb4 someone links a time they bombed a school, 'cause West bad)
“Links a time”?
Like at the beginning of the last illegal fucking war they started 6 months ago?
There you go!
It would have been embarrassing if nobody did it after/because I pointed it out.
Did you see a link?
No, because it was recent enough you know exactly what I was talking about.
Funny enough, I’m actually not sure.
Do you still want to give a link?
That’d be playing right into your hands.
Nice try.
Was it, or was it an obvious softball question you were supposed to get?
For anyone reading, the point is actually to not talk to these people, since I don’t like having the same argument over and over again, and it’s messed up they care so much about “winning” in the first place.
So stop arguing. It is very clear in American law that the POTUS can not issue a legal order to attack a country that America has a peace pact with, and both countries are members of NATO. Exactly what do you think he meant by the factual statement ‘preposterous’, as in ‘not possible’? For any military officer who follows and repeats such an order, they could be tried and if convicted imprisoned.
Eh… I think you should maybe still be embarrassed.
Lol no.
That was actually a funny moment. It was supposed to be a 1/3 chance of no response or 2/3 of a different anti-Western canard. Instead, the internet decided to be extra dumb and walk into an obvious blunder.
He clearly stated that such an order would not be a legal order. What exactly do you think the factual term ‘preposterous’ means? Under American law, it is illegal to attack a country that America has a peace pact with, and both counties are members of NATO. No ‘executive order’ can change that, and every officer in the American military knows that they can be charged and if convicted imprisoned for following an order that is not a legal order, no matter who gives it.
Hmm. That’s never come up before, but it sounds plausible. Is there a specific bill that says this?
I outlined it completely in a separate post to this article. It is extensive. Look through the posts and read it.
Americans need pads to play football, should tell you everything you need to know how they feel about violence…
This comment makes no sense. And, especially with the recognition over the last 10 years that football players experience super high rates of brain trauma/damage, this comment seems… hmmm… <fill in your own adjective>.
it made no sense… to you.
Nah mate, you had a shit take and they pointed out the flaw in your “point”.
My guy: the take that Americans are Hypocritically fans of violence -except when its used against them- still stands. if you and your ill fated compatriot cant cant see it: then I got a lake in the desert to sell ya…
I’m just going to say you may say this, however there’s been many comments about rugby players talking about how the speed and the level of impact is much higher with American football because of the fact that they are wearing pads and it becomes a much more violent hard-hitting overall. Even though rugby is much more fast-paced and typically those players may have a lot more stamina there’s never been much comment about the lack of violence in American sports. So while your comment on the surface seems haha. If you actually know anything about both sports it really doesn’t work.
ok, sure. Americans also sit in trailers with xbox controllers launching hellfire missiles at strangers around the other side of the planet and go home calling themselves ‘veterans.’
Mango Mussolini would need to start a military draft.
I’m pretty sure that if he publicly says he’s going to disobey orders, that’s grounds for removal, even under a sane president. (Although a sane president might not choose to remove him)
As a Canadian I wish they would all get fired. Fuck em. Worthless disrespectful people. Never met a US soldier worthy of the air they breathe. Inbred illiterstes the lot of them. Suckers and losers.
Especially if they’re lawful orders, like this.
It would not be a lawful order The POTUS does not have the authority to issue such an order. That is why he clearly stated 'it is preposterous;. Not an opinion, a statement of fact.
This is almost certainly why he won’t answer the question either way. If he says that he wouldn’t, Trump would just fire him and replace him with someone that says they would privately, away from any public scrutiny at all.
It would be a net negative for everyone other than fascists.
It’s a pointless question. If he answers no truthfully he gets fired. If he lies and says ‘yes’ to keep his job we get undue anxiety when there already enough of that going around from memes and trade wars.
Have they said no to any of the USA’s other illegal invasions? Don’t count on the bravery of Americans who tell you they would resist. Count on drones.
The military doesn’t promote officers for refusing orders.
What a stupid ragebait headline. Of course a geneneral is not going to even suggest they would disobey a hypothetical lawful order. Why would someone end their career for some journalists gocha question?
Says nothing about his private thoughts or what he would actually do. Zero information value.
If anything, I’d give him credit for not saying yes. Hell in the current climate that might get you removed.
How is that a lawful order??
How is bombing a wedding a lawful order?
The military is trained to be mindless sychophants.
They weren’t ordered to bomb a wedding, they either thought it was something else or they missed another target. They just don’t give a shit that they bombed a wedding.
Source?
Cuz here’s one of many they did after 9/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre
You see, if a single guest is on their kill lists that means anyone near them is a “valid military target by association” and “acceptable collateral damage”
It’s technically not illegal to invade another country unprovoked. It’s illegal to do war crimes though. You can invade a country and annex it without committing warcrimes.
No it is literally illegal to invade another country unprovoked, the crime is called “war of aggression”. It is one of the foundational pillars of international law. The Nuremberg judgement called aggressive war the “supreme international crime”. This is the reason US shuns and delegitimizes the ICC and the ICJ, the two bodies supposedly enforcing international law.
It is also separately illegal to annex another country even by mere threat of force, even if no actual force was used.
I guess if your shit hole country doesn’t adhere to international law.
War isn’t actually illegal. I know it feels like it should be, but it really isn’t. People say a war is “illegal” because I suppose they feel like it carries more weight than to just say it’s “immoral”. I guess it’s somehow comforting to people to think that somehow some lawyers could prevent countries from going to war somehow.
But there are illegal wars. Iran right now is illegal it wasn’t approved by Congress. Trump is basically using legal bullfuckery and a lack of consequences to do that shit.
Congress allows the executive branch to do so, this war is not an abuse of the legal system it’s being used as intended
Yes any order from the POTUS to attack a country that America has a peace accord with is not a legal order.
He very clearly said that such an order from the POTUS would be illegal, and that no one in the chain of command would consider it as a legal order. The POTUS can not giver a legal order to attack a country that the US has a peace agreement with, and both countries are covered by the NATO agreement.
It isn’t, but Congress is pretending it is which is the same thing.
Because its a hypothetical where the journalist didnt specify “unlawful order”. Its a bs gocha question. There are hypothetical situations where it would be lawful, regardless of how likely.
Lawful /= you agree with it, basically.
To see why this is definitely within the powers the president has, swap “Canada” for “Vietnam”, “Iraq” or “Iran”. For more detail, you’d have to refer to the actual laws of war the US government recognises.
Canada and America are bound bu the NATO agreement. Under American law that makes any order to attack Canada not a legal order. Any military officer who abides by that order commits an offense under American law. That is why it is ‘preposterous’. That was a factually correct term, not his opinion.
Sounds like it’s high time America was dissolved and balkanized, then.
There isn’t any nation where the military can just disagree. Even under a military junta, it’s only the junta itself that gets a say; everyone lower down must follow orders (even the ones involving atrocities, in that case. The West is weird for exempting something).
That said, yeah, America isn’t looking so good these days.
In America it is illegal for a member of the military to obey a command that is not legal. If they do obey, or even issue a command that is not legal, they can be prosecuted and if found guilty imprisoned.
It never did. It was founded on genocide and slavery.
Yes, .ml person. I’m sure you believe that. And also that North Korea is better, somehow. 'Nuff said.
Edit: Clearly, the username is ironic, with this much effort to get into a fight.
If you don’t believe that both the US and Canada were founded on unspeakable genocide (which inspired the holocaust BTW) and slavery you are delusional. North Korea (for all its faults) was founded by those who resisted and fought the genocidal oppressors. Read a damn book.
I believe in history, lol? Why are you bringing up North Korea?
Is your brain okay?
Edit: clearly this person wasn’t interested in a conversation at all, based on my instance, lol?
