Comment by lukaa
5 years ago
''But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people.'' You know, he is president, that gives him right to use or threaten with violence if he thinks that safety of country is seriously in danger. If you think that he is breaking constitution there is court to decide about that.
> ''But it's a lot less violent than ordering the military to shoot people.'' You know, he is president, that gives him right to use or threaten with violence if he thinks that safety of country is seriously in danger. If you think that he is breaking constitution there is court to decide about that.
That's actually not true. There are legal bounds to what violence he can and cannot threaten. The President is not a dictator, in which case you would be correct. And we don't have to wait for a court to decide that the order is illegal. Members of the military are actually supposed to refuse illegal orders, not obey them blindly like good little Nazis.
Unfortunately, what you are saying lead to anarchy. You just said that we live in democracy. In democracy disputes are settled in court.
> Unfortunately, what you are saying lead to anarchy.
That is a big, and unjustified, leap. Can you explain this assertion?
> You just said that we live in democracy.
I didn't say that, though it is a statement I'd agree with.
> In democracy disputes are settled in court.
This is not actually required to be a democracy. I'm not sure where you get this idea from.
Many things are already settled, either in law, the constitution, treaties, or, yes, court decisions, but do not require further court decisions. One of those is this: Military members are not obligated to follow illegal orders, and can actually be held accountable for failure to disobey.
4 replies →