Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (7338)	4/26/2006 3:25:09 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A command, in order to be lawful must be one relating to military duty, i.e., the disobedience of which must tend to impede, delay or prevent a military proceeding. A superior officer has the right to give a command for the purpose of maintaining good order or suppressing a disturbance or for the execution of a military duty or regulation or for a purpose connected with the welfare of troops or for any generally accepted details of military life. He has no right to take advantage of his military rank to give a command which does not relate to military duty or usage which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end. Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful. And it better be manifestly unlawful unless you want to spend time at Leavenworth making little rocks from big rocks. As I was told in boot camp, you don't know shit so shut up and go with the idea that your commanding officer knows what he is doing until a more superior officer states otherwise:)