The best scenario we can hope for is for generals to simply refuse an illegal order, and when told to retire, refuse, and when reassigned to also refuse on the grounds that it’s illegal punishment for refusing an illegal order.
Anything more and you’re in coup territory, which sets the precedent that the military can step in and “correct” civilian government when it’s wrong in their view. See, for example, Myanmar. Even after the military relinquished control to allow democracy, they still decided to “correct” that democracy when it started to drift from their wishes.
Refusing civilian government requests that violate the constitution is literally part of their oath. It is the highest and most important part. To cede ultimate authority to the constitution, to the law, and not to a leader.
This is an existential battle between those who want a framework of power that is a hierarchy and those, like the founders, who wanted a division of power across a community of leaders, to prevent monarchic hierarchies. If democracy falls to the consolidation of a hierarchy then the American experiment has concluded and we return to the age of kings and warlords. The dream of community rule, not individual power, must be tried elsewhere, with whatever learnings can be gained, like the influence of power of private capital and the role of wealth on democratic integrity.
I hope American patriots, those who believe in the separation of power as the founders did, win this battle.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Well, it’s also part of the oath the civilian leadership takes, for what it’s worth.
Point is, you want the military to say “you can’t tell me to do that” and not “I won’t let you do that”.
The latter is the military exerting power over the civilian government, which is a deeply dangerous precedent.
Myanmar is a bit different. It was under constant control of the military and families connect to it (which also got extremely rich through corruption).
They switched to “democracy” to get sanctions lifted, but they still controlled what government did. Once people voted on a bill that would remove their power and turn Myanmar to true democracy, that’s when they stepped in and took control back to prevent it.
These generals have been doing war crimes for decades for money. You think they will stop taking orders when they tell them to turn their guns on you? These soulless fucks execute orders as told, and would gladly kill you for a promotion
The best scenario we can hope for is for generals to simply refuse an illegal order, and when told to retire, refuse, and when reassigned to also refuse on the grounds that it’s illegal punishment for refusing an illegal order.
Anything more and you’re in coup territory, which sets the precedent that the military can step in and “correct” civilian government when it’s wrong in their view. See, for example, Myanmar. Even after the military relinquished control to allow democracy, they still decided to “correct” that democracy when it started to drift from their wishes.
Refusing civilian government requests that violate the constitution is literally part of their oath. It is the highest and most important part. To cede ultimate authority to the constitution, to the law, and not to a leader.
This is an existential battle between those who want a framework of power that is a hierarchy and those, like the founders, who wanted a division of power across a community of leaders, to prevent monarchic hierarchies. If democracy falls to the consolidation of a hierarchy then the American experiment has concluded and we return to the age of kings and warlords. The dream of community rule, not individual power, must be tried elsewhere, with whatever learnings can be gained, like the influence of power of private capital and the role of wealth on democratic integrity.
I hope American patriots, those who believe in the separation of power as the founders did, win this battle.
Well, it’s also part of the oath the civilian leadership takes, for what it’s worth.
Point is, you want the military to say “you can’t tell me to do that” and not “I won’t let you do that”.
The latter is the military exerting power over the civilian government, which is a deeply dangerous precedent.
Agreed.
Myanmar is a bit different. It was under constant control of the military and families connect to it (which also got extremely rich through corruption).
They switched to “democracy” to get sanctions lifted, but they still controlled what government did. Once people voted on a bill that would remove their power and turn Myanmar to true democracy, that’s when they stepped in and took control back to prevent it.
Well that’s sort of my point. Once you go down the military coup path it’s hard to get out.
These generals have been doing war crimes for decades for money. You think they will stop taking orders when they tell them to turn their guns on you? These soulless fucks execute orders as told, and would gladly kill you for a promotion
What does that have to do with what I said, which was about how a military coup is bad?
Whether you’re right or wrong, it’s just unrelated to what I said.