And by the way, if Mattis refuses in such a hypothetical case, that is unconstitutional. The generals CANNOT refuse the President in such a circumstance. They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused — Agustino

Again, of course it can be refused. Orders don't have some magical power of compulsion. Trump would be free to punish someone for disobeying, and having charges pressed, but it doesn't then follow that he's willing.

that would be treason

We've gone over this. It isn't treason to disobey the President.

No, he was considering it, but he didn't actually try to do it. If he orders Mattis, and Mattis starts initiating the procedures, and then something goes wrong and they don't do it anymore, then he did order him. — Agustino

This is wrong.

And by the way, if Mattis refuses in such a hypothetical case, that is unconstitutional. The generals CANNOT refuse the President in such a circumstance. They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused - that would be treason. — Agustino

Not strictly true. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42065714

And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer.

We've gone over this. It isn't treason to disobey the President. — Michael

Yes it is. The President is the Supreme Commander of the military, and it is TREASON to disobey a military order of the President, punishable by death. No military in this world allows ANY kind of disobedience of orders.

Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order

This is from the article PT quoted.

This is wrong. — ProbablyTrue

Why?

Not strictly true. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42065714 — ProbablyTrue

Yes, they can debate the President and try to convince him otherwise, but if he says this is what we have to do, they cannot disobey.

And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer. — ProbablyTrue

That's a different matter altogether now.

And even if it were; better to die a traitor than live as a mass murderer. — ProbablyTrue

And yes, if things got that far, there would be a lot of chaos, and we'd move into a mode of operation that is outside the constitution, with different factions forming, Congress maybe opposing the President, etc. At that point, it doesn't matter what the law is, what matters is who controls the power structures better and whose orders are followed.

it is TREASON to disobey a military order of the President — Agustino

No it isn't. Treason is "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere."

punishable by death — Agustino

Not necessarily. Someone found guilty of treason "shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

No it isn't. Treason is "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere." — Michael

You don't understand how the law works. Disobeying a military order is giving aid to the enemy.

Disobeying a military order is giving aid to the enemy. — Agustino

No it isn't.

No it isn't. — Michael

Yes it is, ask any lawyer that deals with military cases, and you'll see. Through all of human history, disobeying military commands was brutally punished, precisely because the consequences of doing so could be very grave.

No it isn't. — Michael

Any act of disobedience in the military promotes further disobedience, which aids the enemy in a war effort and prevents the cohesion that is necessary for the nation to be victorious. (not to mention that it slows down what could be critical war efforts)

I already provided you with a link to an article on what it means to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. Disobeying the President isn't one of them.

Again, you're fabricating legal knowledge. What are your sources?

I already provided you with a link to an article on what it means to give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. Disobeying the President isn't one of them. — Michael

Yes it is. It doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the law to be so. The law provides general principles, it never mentions all particulars of implementation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-design/?utm_term=.338a68f6edc7

Treason isn't mentioned there at all.

However, Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution provides that the “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”. Under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to disobey an order in peacetime is punishable by life in prison. If we believe the Pentagon theory that we are involved in a “Global War on Terror”, then there is an ongoing war, and the punishment for disobeying orders is death.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/military-ignores-obamas-order-release-shaker-aamer-guantanamo

Really, you have zero familiarity with military history and how things actually work.

Treason isn't mentioned there at all. — Michael

It doesn't need to be mentioned - we're not in kindergarten.

What the hell are you talking about? I ask you for your source that shows that it is treason to disobey the President and you provide me a link to an article that doesn't mention treason at all. That's nonsense.

I ask you for your source that shows that it is treason to disobey the President and you provide me a link to an article that doesn't mention treason at all. — Michael

It results straight from reading and understanding the law.

I'll try one last time.

Billy lights a fuse attached to a bomb inside the bank. Unbeknownst to him there is a wet spot half way down the fuse and the flame goes out. Billy decides to not light the fuse again. Did Billy attempt to blow up the bank?

Under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to disobey an order in peacetime is punishable by life in prison. If we believe the Pentagon theory that we are involved in a “Global War on Terror”, then there is an ongoing war, and the punishment for disobeying orders is death.

Article 90 isn't the crime of treason. It's the crime of "Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer."

Did Billy attempt to blow up the bank? — ProbablyTrue

Yes, because he actually initiated action that would have blown up the bank, and it is only a fortuitous occurrence which stopped it.

It results straight from reading and understanding the law. — Agustino

No, you're just making it up.

Article 90 isn't the crime of treason. It's the crime of "Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer." — Michael

Ok, so practical matters considered, they cannot disobey the order. Case closed.

It matters less how you call it or how you classify it.

Ok, so practical matters considered, they cannot disobey the order. Case closed. — Agustino

Case closed? Yes, case closed; it isn't treason. Furthermore, they can disobey. They'll just be punished for it, were Trump willing.

And finally, article 90 wouldn't apply to the case of McGahn disobeying Trump's order to fire Mueller.

Case closed? Yes, case closed; it isn't treason. Furthermore, they can disobey. They'll just be punished for it, were Trump willing. — Michael

I can care less how lawyers find a way to classify it in the law. I'm a practical man. It's same with accounting - I don't care how accountants classify things, that's their problem.

I can care less how lawyers find a way to classify it in the law. I'm a practical man. It's same with accounting - I don't care how accountants classify things, that's their problem. — Agustino

We're talking about what crimes, if any, have been committed. It is the legal technicalities that matter, not your pragmatism. Whether or not it's "practically" treason or "practically" not obstruction is irrelevant. Either it's legally treason or it's not; either it's legally obstruction or it's not.

Legally, disobeying the President isn't treason, and legally, according to experts responding to recent news reports, there's a case for Trump obstructing justice. Your personal, uninformed opinions on these matters have no bearing.

They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused - that would be treason. — Agustino

It's called "insubordination". Look it up.

It is the legal technicalities that matter, not your pragmatism. Whether or not it's "practically" treason or "practically" not obstruction is irrelevant. — Michael

It is very relevant. Your good sense is often more important than the law, especially when interpreting the law for a non-lawyer, like I presume both of us are.

It's called "insubordination". Look it up. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks.

and legally, according to experts responding to recent news reports, there's a case for Trump obstructing justice. — Michael

No, not according to all experts.