= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Happy Petrov Day - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
I honestly can't tell what you're saying here. What do you think is the oath he swore?
Either:
A) An officer's solemn duty to determine whether or not their orders are supporting and defending the Constitution, possibly against domestic enemies, can be rounded off to "I will obey an order from a superior officer only if I decide it makes sense"
or
B) It can't.
In the first case, my use of your language is appropriate. In the second case, your earlier comment is the source of the error, and I was simply not critical enough.
But maybe you think that an officer swears something like the following:
Which: No! They don't! That's part of the Oath of Enlistment but not the Oath of Office, which the Wikipedia page points out is missing that element. And Hering, as a Major, was an officer.
I think that the B) case is pretty obvious. In particular, because "makes sense" is a MUCH wider criterion than "supporting and defending the Constitution".
In the specific case of Hering, he was was worried about the President being (temporarily?) insane. Given that he was in no position to make a mental health diagnosis, his position essentially boiled down to saying that his perception of the situation overrides his (presumably) direct orders -- and that's not because the President suddenly became a domestic enemy and a threat to the Constitution.
Then.... why did you say it?
Because I don't think that Hering's preemptive grab of authority ("I will use or not use the nukes depending of what I think is right regardless of what my orders say") falls under "supporting and defending the Constitution". I think it falls under "makes sense to me".
I don't see where your "preemptive grab of authority" characterization is coming from. Officers are not obligated to follow illegal orders; the established doctrine is that they will be held liable if they do so--that they were simply following orders is no defense. That is, they are only supposed to follow orders that "make sense" to them (in a legal and moral, not strategic, sense).
Yes, it's correct that Petrov's resistance was technical and Hering's resistance was moral, and we / the government may have different opinions on how to react to technical or moral resistance. But my point is that Hering is reacting to an inconsistency in the government's approach (simultaneously binding its officers to defy and not to defy), not adding a novel inconsistency on his own.