Richard Engel on NBC implies that US Generals may defy Trump.

In this clip, Engel says that a General and then Generals (plural), are reading the Constitution to determine whether they have to follow orders which they feel are illegal or immoral.

He seems a little unhinged and backtracks a bit but may be implying that the military may not follow Trump's orders, at-least not in the context of deporting millions of illegals.

Regardless, the Nuremberg Trials which were the basis for the Geneva Conventions (as well as the Laws of Land Warfare) make it clear that the military not only has a right but a duty to resist illegal and immoral orders, which is what our military should have been doing for the past several decades.

And the drama continues...

a reply to: gladtobehere

Yeah they've been threatening to do that for a while now. So Trump has just said he'll replace them with yes men. For every general that refuses to do something illegal or immoral there is another ambitious jackass standing behind him willing to throw morals out the window for a shot at glory and power.

a reply to: gladtobehere

What is it exactly that the generals are allegedly not wanting to do?

People are STILL out there making stuff up. Its fascinating, hysterical and a bit concerning to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is one of the problems with our entire system, it applies to every elected public servant and appointed bureaucrat.

Theyve said as much.

"If I dont do it, "they'll" just replace me with someone who will"...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

funny cause thats just what obama did, actually went around firing generals who wouldnt follow his orders unquestioningly

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

funny cause thats just what obama did, actually went around firing generals who wouldnt follow his orders unquestioningly

So then you must understand the point I'm making, no?

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is one of the problems with our entire system, it applies to every elected public servant and appointed bureaucrat.

Theyve said as much.

"If I dont do it, theyll just replace me with someone who will"...

You can thank Andrew Jackson for the precedent of partisan executive appointments and rewarding people who helped you campaign with cabinet positions.

a reply to: eluryh22

I agree, because I've seen many a troop holding up signs IN SUPPORT OF TRUMP. Some of those troops are in my own family.

Bobble heads talking trying to remain relevant.

They didnt defy Obama or Bush with the BS.. and in my humble opinion, they should have.

Besides, Cali wants to defy federal law.. bus them there. Chicago, Ny... but cut federal funds for any and all services for Illegals. Let the city pull money out of thin air to handle the volume. Illegal is illegal.. get legal, wont be a problem.

Besides, myself and many here on ATS who are also heavily involved with the DoD, retired, career, and active Mil.. theyve rejoiced that Clinton isnt in the big chair. Trump is capable of working with mil. Its OURS dying in countries that dont want us there and we have no business being in. Now we have a chance to stop being USED as world police and dog of war for the globalists and UN.

How much damage can the liberal media cause?

Guess, we will see.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: gladtobehere

What is it exactly that the generals are allegedly not wanting to do?

People are STILL out there making stuff up. Its fascinating, hysterical and a bit concerning to me.

True that. The military on the whole overwhelmingly supported Trump during this election. Obama has been very open in his disdain for the military and has fired top generals and admirals that he felt weren't loyal to him. There's no doubt Hillary would have had an even more contemptuous attitude toward the military. I would think the military is overjoyed they will have a Commander in Chief who actually appreciates and supports them. IMO this guy is not credible.

Looks like this video is from election night when the MSM was going nuts over a possible Trump win.

And what exactly makes this fella an expert ?

What "immoral" orders are they expecting to come? Does he specify? Obviously they don't regard "fighting wars" as immoral, or they would have said so earlier. On the other hand, the left seem to regard "supporting Trump" as immoral, and presumably actually being Trump is even worse.
Putting those indications together, perhaps we can expect them to disregard instructions to stop fighting a war, as long as the instructions come from Trump or anyone who supports him. "Sorry, we can't obey you. Our understanding of ethics obliges us to continue fighting."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: gladtobehere

Yeah they've been threatening to do that for a while now. So Trump has just said he'll replace them with yes men. For every general that refuses to do something illegal or immoral there is another ambitious jackass standing behind him willing to throw morals out the window for a shot at glory and power.

isnt that the same case with the last 5 presidents?
"yes men" were all for the iraq invasion, spying on the public and foreign nations, dropping bombs on what may or may not be enemies, selling weapons to the highest bidder, overthrowing other leaders, the list goes on.
you need a lot of "yes men" to accomplish what the US has in the past 20 years.
to put that in perspective, ask yourself under which presidency did the US NOT drop a bomb on a foreign soil...

-
but trump can pull a kim jung move and just execute potential dissenters

Lol as if Trump will ask them to do anything more immoral than any previous president has done?

Killing and oppressing people is immoral.
Our Generals have been leading that charge for years.
Since when is drone striking hospitals Moral and legal?

Military generals worried about morals. wtf.


a reply to: gladtobehere

a reply to: odzeandennz

Yes. That's what I'm getting at. Only an idiot thinks that Obama was bad for the military or that Hillary would have been bad for the military. Both of them are conservative war hawks when it comes to foreign intervention. How many wars did Obama start, disregarding the ones that he carried over from Bush? The statistic that military spending rivals all other US government spending or that US military spending rivals the next 10 countries came about during Obama's Presidency.

If there is any sector in the American psyche that doesn't have a right to complain about bad times its military personnel. Pretty much since the end of WWII the military has been sitting pretty thanks to both sides of the partisan aisle. And it is pure partisan politics to claim otherwise.

It won't be the military deporting illegal felons, it will be law enforcement.

This is just poorly thought out fear mongering at its worst.

a reply to: eluryh22

Exactly, rewatch it and note the claim Robert is claiming this from.

Its a ludicrous assertion that Trump will blindly deport everyone, with a ludicrous statement Robert says he talks to Generals and they are all reading the constitution to see if its legal or not to deport illegals?????

This was an interview minutes after the whole panel of reporters realized Hillary lost.

He was feverish with jealousy when making this claim.

a reply to: gladtobehere

All military personnel only have to follow lawful orders.

Whether or not FEEL they are illegal or immoral (which isn't a legal defense in not following an order) is irrelevant.

FOx mews claimed the same bs when obama was in charge, and guess what nothing changed.