I was thinking about this sort of thing this morning (once known as "the good German syndrome") and recalled that during the workers' strike in the Gdansk shipyard that propelled Lech Walesa onto the international stage, a large part of the strike's success was attributed to the Polish police and military's refusal to fire or inflict violence upon their fellow countrymen. I don't see that sort of restraint among Amerikan police, National Guard, or Army personnel. In fact, the exact opposite appears to be encouraged, whether in the streets of Minneapolis or at the Reflecting Pool. For the life of me, I can't figure out when "just following orders" became an acceptable part of the language.
Thanks for writing this, Bill. In my own observations, those who make Admiral and General are those who are willing to go along with the narrative. Career is put before morals, a thing I saw happen many times. Also, all the recent wars we have been involved in were based on motives whose truth was not shared with the American people, leading to our soldiers and sailors and airmen, etc to suffer high rates of PTSD due to the things they did for all the wrong reasons. I am not criticizing the lower ranks, as they find themselves between a rock and hard place. I highly recommend Seth Harp's (he is a Veteran) book The Fort Bragg Cartel. The corruption runs so deep.
There's a certain self-selection that goes into flag rank. It was said, when I was in the Navy, an officer could get to O-5 (Commander(Navy)/Lt Colonel (Army/Air Force) on the basis of performance. To get to O-6, took being political. And O-7 and above (flag rank) took not only your political smarts, but having a spouse who looked the part and could play the same game.
Same w/ the Enlisted Ranks when I was in the AF 4 yrs. To make "First Shirt" a Diamond w/ your Stripes- political, also E-8 & E-9 "Senior & Chief Master Shirts". All who you know and who you blow...lol These are the Top-3 Club. My fave. Officer's when in SAC were the Warrant Officers who flew Choppa's., and the so called Permanent Majors & Captains O3 & O4's. who had to get out were being Riffed because they couldn't achieve Rank because they weren't Butt- Kissers!
A similar argument can be made for the all professional military wherein all members are seeking promotion and their loyalty is to the chain of command rather than to their country.
I forget who it was that once said, "a large standing army is an anathema to democracy."
A standing army needs a mission, and that mission becomes "fighting terrorism", regime change, the growth of empire, and war. What became of the so-called peace dividend after the collapse of the USSR? Did the US spend less on the military? No. Ending the Cold War gave more money to the War on Terror. War. war, war.
Dirty Politicians in the Dirtiest game in Town. "Peace Dividend" yeah right!! They stand on the Stage all smiles no shame.... Pointing their fingers :/ :o) "No man can get rich in politics unless he's a Crook." -- Harry S. Truman
The question regarding morality appears to be surfacing more and more these days in blogs, social media posts, and political forums.
If the only way to get ahead in politics is to be corrupt - the only way to get a higher education is to be rich - and the only way to be rich is to exploit others ruthlessly and avoid regulations, or already be born with a silver spoon in one's mouth - where does that leave morality?
Those who become billionaires or find themselves in the White House stand on pillars of immorality, from Elon Musk to ICE goon Stephen Miller.
Western civilization seems to be in a deep crisis of immorality. Perhaps at the heart of morality is how much are we to value human life, single or en masse? Where do you draw a line between corporate greed and the pursuit of profits, and human lives? Is GAZA and Ukraine really a question about human morality in the end?
Is it justifiable to ideologically embrace a Neo-Darwinistic society and devalue human lives in the pursuit of power and wealth? Is it acceptable and inevitable that Nature itself is a jungle and only the laws of the jungle should apply?
Bill, this is a thoughtful post that leads to a lot of self reflection for any of us who wore a uniform and swore the same oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution.
Over the years, I've questioned whether the people we nominally served - the citizenry (now called consumers, indicating our assigned primary role), understood and appreciated the Constitution (and its basis in creating the institutions under which we live). Those institutions - whether educational, financial governance, military, or religious - all seem to be collapsing in front of us.
Looked at that way, the rot in the military leadership reflects the institutional failures occurring across our late stage empire. Maybe institutional failures, starting small and growing larger, are the inevitable steps in an empire's collapse.
The debacle in the conflict with Iran must certainly have been foreseen by a planning cell somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon - that the assessment never made it up to the decision makers (and in the case of Trump likely would not have mattered) reflects that institutional failure.
I recall from Glanz's book (Clash of the Titans) that German logisticians had predicted the point (depth and time period) when the German advance into Russia would have to stop for rest and resupply. They were ignored.
Thank you for highlighting Aaron Bushnell in your essay, Bill. I am guilty of letting him slip from memory. But his honor and patriotism are undeniable. Note that I use Edward Snowden's definition of patriotism, "Patriotism is not about loyalty to the government. Patriotism in fact isn't about being loyal to anything. Patriotism is a constant effort to do good for the people of your country." That assumes that soldiers are critical thinkers (one thing that not only the military but our government and society discourages).
Our culture is portrayed to appear as if our society is free thinking. But freedom of thought is only acceptable within the defined boundaries as determined by a ruling or Epstein class of powerful people. Any dissent or divergence from the acceptable is becoming increasing intolerable. I think the term tyranny may apply.
Except many of those, particularly those in Congress, will have problems with the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th. And for all their football-loving supporters, the 4th is going to be a problem. :-)
NOWADAYS INSTEAD OF DECLARING WAR AGAINST OUR ENEMIES WE MERGE THEM WITH OUR MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATIONS
Our treasonous congress is salivating to merge the 2027 1.5 trillion NDAA military authorization with a country that has stolen our nuclear and intelligence secrets and sold them to the Soviet Union and China and has for the last seven decades conducted a brutal genocidal murder campaign against innocent men, women and especially children in Palestine and now Lebanon. :
‘‘The legislation specifies Israel-U.S. coordination with America’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Missile Defense Agency, including the Golden Dome initiative, the United States Space Command, directed energy programs, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other critical technologies that will shape the future distribution of power.”
Congress Is Preparing To Surrender American Sovereignty on the Eve of America’s 250th Anniversary
Treacherous ( AND TREASONOUS) provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) mandate that the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commerce Department, and the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies cooperate with their Israeli counterparts for the purpose of consolidating U.S. and Israeli military activities in order to align efforts and avoid duplication.
The legacy of Nuremberg is now reflected in the U.S. Manual of Courts-Martial, which states that service members have a duty to disobey an order that “a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal.”
Nov. 20th, 2025 marked the 80th anniversary of the trial’s start at Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice.
***************************
George W. “Dumbya” Bush, who evaded military service in Vietnam, was quick to anoint himself a “wartime president” with attending visuals and symbolism, from a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office to the “Mission Accomplished” stunt of landing aboard an aircraft carrier (delayed for at least a day in arriving back at home port after a long deployment to accommodate the political production) in a “fighter” jet but was actually a more humble and utilitarian, subsonic S-3 Viking anti-submarine aircraft, with no offensive capability other than for use against submarines. Of course, Dumbya was in a flight suit, emphasizing the codpiece.
*****************************
Isoroku Yamamoto was a young naval attaché in the United States in the 1920s, attended Harvard, got to see the country and was much impressed with its industrial might. He rose through the ranks in the Imperial Navy to top policy positions; keeping in mind his view of America, he staunchly opposed the military adventurism of the Imperial Army which would invite involvement and encounters with the U.S. Nonetheless, when the decision was made to attack Pearl Harbor, he ceased his opposition so as to serve his emperor, but in laying the plans for the attack and subsequent actions, he cautioned, “I can give you victory for the first six months, after that I promise you nothing.” How prescient. Midway took place almost seven months to the day after Dec. 7th, from there on Japan was on the defensive until Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
*******************************
“Seven Days in May” was (is) an excellent 1964 movie about a planned coup where rogue officers among the Joint Chiefs of Staff attempt to overthrow a president they judge to be “weak” on defense. How about an audacious modern day remake where a similar group of the Joint Chiefs attempt a coup against a reckless, war-drunk president and secretary of "war” because they not only threaten soldiers and sailors needlessly in pursuit of war crime-military action, but also invite Armageddon? They would invoke the “Duty to Disobey” from the Nuremberg Trials as the basis for their action.
Oh geez, I don't have time to finish reading this! But based on how far I got into the article itself (excluding comments of others), I make these points: 1.) an invading aggressor is always at a disadvantage in fighting the folks who actually live in the "lucky" country targeted for aggression. ["They may be Viet Cong, but they live there!"] [See "The Territorial Imperative" by Robert Ardrey, c. 1966--the author already felt a US loss in Viet Nam in the making.] There are always turncoats in the indigenous population, traitors, informers, "scouts" working for the invader. But there are ways for the good citizens to deal with them; 2.) Who was more ARROGANT? Emperor Nero, Kaiser Bill, Adolf Hitler or the USA as a whole? I have to answer the latter entity. This leads to delusional belief in the inevitability of the invader's victory; 3.) Related to that, being the USA means "never having to say you're sorry"!! Or that you were wrong. War Crimes tribunals be damned, paying reparations to victims-- NEVER!!; 4.) Final note on being delusional: it is said that Hitler relied on astrologers to help him make crucial wartime decisions. Reagan may have consulted his wife's astrologer. Yeah, that's the way to make sound decisions!
Hello Bill Astore... This is a Very Good Post... Thank You.... The 'Best' American War in results of objectives achieved vs expenditures, was the '91 Gulf War.. It was led by GHWB, who was shot-down twice in the Pacific, and senior Military-Officers that served in Vietnam as Junior Officers... The '91 War had limited objectives, met all of them, and was over in 100-hrs... Take-That IDF!!!... The USA Founders were suspect of large Standing Armies... They can be misused as we are finding out... Bring Back Universal Service... Knit This Country Back Together Again...
Yes and we enlisted soldiers swore the same oath, but I'm just unclear on what wording in the Constitution you refer to and the reasoning for why you consider it violated.
Most fundamentally, that wars to be legal must be formally declared by Congress. Wars are supposed to require the support and consent of the governed. They are not supposed to be waged at the whim of the "unitary executive."
Also, fundamentally, the military is supposed to exist to support and defend that very Constitution. The emphasis is defense--defense of laws, liberties, freedoms. Under the Constitution, war is not to be waged offensively and for interests foreign to the health of America domestically.
As our oath stipulates, we are even told to defend the Constitution against *domestic* enemies. We should think very hard about what that means. For example, dissenters exercising their rights of speech and assembly are not enemies, they are patriots. Those who attack and vilify dissenters are the real enemy.
Of course, if dissent mutates to sedition, that's an entirely different issue.
And the legality of the Iran War seems hinged on the constitionality of the 1973 War Powers Act, and involves legal questions that were not resolves by the Supreme Court Chadha ruling of 1983. So that is why I say I defer to the judiciary. The Dems say they will sue to enforce their Concurrent Resolution passed by both the House and Senate, so perhaps this will lead to a new Supreme Court ruling.
Thank you. I leave it to the judiciary to interpret the laws and the constitution, and believe a strong independent judiciary is the sanity of our nation.
I generally agree with your assessment of soldiers' oath to protect the Constitution, but of course there is legal grey area and that is where much or all of the controversy lies.
For example protesters are patriots yes, but can a terrorism/extremism designation justify convictions such as the alleged Antifa members sentenced to life in prison recently for their role in attacka in Texas?
Offensive wars are illegal yes, but is it possibly true that Iran represented a clear and present danger to the US? Without access to specific computer systems located on specific US bases I could never tell you accurately what our intelligence indicates, and so I cannot answer these kinds of questions personally.
So I am left to guess and to defer to the executive branch for the enforcement of laws and the Constitution.
If the information environment weren't obscure and the legal grey area were properly defined it would be simple to decide whether or not to dissent on these and other issues.
Alas, I am a mere civilian now and so this is no longer my part to play anyhow.
I was thinking about this sort of thing this morning (once known as "the good German syndrome") and recalled that during the workers' strike in the Gdansk shipyard that propelled Lech Walesa onto the international stage, a large part of the strike's success was attributed to the Polish police and military's refusal to fire or inflict violence upon their fellow countrymen. I don't see that sort of restraint among Amerikan police, National Guard, or Army personnel. In fact, the exact opposite appears to be encouraged, whether in the streets of Minneapolis or at the Reflecting Pool. For the life of me, I can't figure out when "just following orders" became an acceptable part of the language.
Thanks for writing this, Bill. In my own observations, those who make Admiral and General are those who are willing to go along with the narrative. Career is put before morals, a thing I saw happen many times. Also, all the recent wars we have been involved in were based on motives whose truth was not shared with the American people, leading to our soldiers and sailors and airmen, etc to suffer high rates of PTSD due to the things they did for all the wrong reasons. I am not criticizing the lower ranks, as they find themselves between a rock and hard place. I highly recommend Seth Harp's (he is a Veteran) book The Fort Bragg Cartel. The corruption runs so deep.
There's a certain self-selection that goes into flag rank. It was said, when I was in the Navy, an officer could get to O-5 (Commander(Navy)/Lt Colonel (Army/Air Force) on the basis of performance. To get to O-6, took being political. And O-7 and above (flag rank) took not only your political smarts, but having a spouse who looked the part and could play the same game.
I'd say that's right.
Same w/ the Enlisted Ranks when I was in the AF 4 yrs. To make "First Shirt" a Diamond w/ your Stripes- political, also E-8 & E-9 "Senior & Chief Master Shirts". All who you know and who you blow...lol These are the Top-3 Club. My fave. Officer's when in SAC were the Warrant Officers who flew Choppa's., and the so called Permanent Majors & Captains O3 & O4's. who had to get out were being Riffed because they couldn't achieve Rank because they weren't Butt- Kissers!
This is also true in the civilian sector in many places. Funny how that works.
A similar argument can be made for the all professional military wherein all members are seeking promotion and their loyalty is to the chain of command rather than to their country.
I forget who it was that once said, "a large standing army is an anathema to democracy."
A standing army needs a mission, and that mission becomes "fighting terrorism", regime change, the growth of empire, and war. What became of the so-called peace dividend after the collapse of the USSR? Did the US spend less on the military? No. Ending the Cold War gave more money to the War on Terror. War. war, war.
The peace dividend was used to buy more weapons and bombs.
Dirty Politicians in the Dirtiest game in Town. "Peace Dividend" yeah right!! They stand on the Stage all smiles no shame.... Pointing their fingers :/ :o) "No man can get rich in politics unless he's a Crook." -- Harry S. Truman
You'd make a good Senator's wife, Mrs. Pendrake.
Exactly.
The question regarding morality appears to be surfacing more and more these days in blogs, social media posts, and political forums.
If the only way to get ahead in politics is to be corrupt - the only way to get a higher education is to be rich - and the only way to be rich is to exploit others ruthlessly and avoid regulations, or already be born with a silver spoon in one's mouth - where does that leave morality?
Those who become billionaires or find themselves in the White House stand on pillars of immorality, from Elon Musk to ICE goon Stephen Miller.
Western civilization seems to be in a deep crisis of immorality. Perhaps at the heart of morality is how much are we to value human life, single or en masse? Where do you draw a line between corporate greed and the pursuit of profits, and human lives? Is GAZA and Ukraine really a question about human morality in the end?
Is it justifiable to ideologically embrace a Neo-Darwinistic society and devalue human lives in the pursuit of power and wealth? Is it acceptable and inevitable that Nature itself is a jungle and only the laws of the jungle should apply?
Deep questions. I think little children know "in their guts" what's moral. Do Unto Others. . . The Golden Rule.
It would seem so. Then we grow up.
Bill, this is a thoughtful post that leads to a lot of self reflection for any of us who wore a uniform and swore the same oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution.
Over the years, I've questioned whether the people we nominally served - the citizenry (now called consumers, indicating our assigned primary role), understood and appreciated the Constitution (and its basis in creating the institutions under which we live). Those institutions - whether educational, financial governance, military, or religious - all seem to be collapsing in front of us.
Looked at that way, the rot in the military leadership reflects the institutional failures occurring across our late stage empire. Maybe institutional failures, starting small and growing larger, are the inevitable steps in an empire's collapse.
The debacle in the conflict with Iran must certainly have been foreseen by a planning cell somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon - that the assessment never made it up to the decision makers (and in the case of Trump likely would not have mattered) reflects that institutional failure.
I recall from Glanz's book (Clash of the Titans) that German logisticians had predicted the point (depth and time period) when the German advance into Russia would have to stop for rest and resupply. They were ignored.
Thank you for highlighting Aaron Bushnell in your essay, Bill. I am guilty of letting him slip from memory. But his honor and patriotism are undeniable. Note that I use Edward Snowden's definition of patriotism, "Patriotism is not about loyalty to the government. Patriotism in fact isn't about being loyal to anything. Patriotism is a constant effort to do good for the people of your country." That assumes that soldiers are critical thinkers (one thing that not only the military but our government and society discourages).
Our culture is portrayed to appear as if our society is free thinking. But freedom of thought is only acceptable within the defined boundaries as determined by a ruling or Epstein class of powerful people. Any dissent or divergence from the acceptable is becoming increasing intolerable. I think the term tyranny may apply.
And for all those "religious" God-Fearing folks, maybe the 10 Commandments would be a good reference.
Morality Rule, anyone?
Except many of those, particularly those in Congress, will have problems with the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th. And for all their football-loving supporters, the 4th is going to be a problem. :-)
The 10th, too.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oil.
I'm waiting for the golden calf that Trump will erect on the White House Lawn.
There may be one commandment he has not broken, possibly the 5th. (I can't verify that)
NOWADAYS INSTEAD OF DECLARING WAR AGAINST OUR ENEMIES WE MERGE THEM WITH OUR MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATIONS
Our treasonous congress is salivating to merge the 2027 1.5 trillion NDAA military authorization with a country that has stolen our nuclear and intelligence secrets and sold them to the Soviet Union and China and has for the last seven decades conducted a brutal genocidal murder campaign against innocent men, women and especially children in Palestine and now Lebanon. :
‘‘The legislation specifies Israel-U.S. coordination with America’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Missile Defense Agency, including the Golden Dome initiative, the United States Space Command, directed energy programs, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other critical technologies that will shape the future distribution of power.”
Congress Is Preparing To Surrender American Sovereignty on the Eve of America’s 250th Anniversary
Treacherous ( AND TREASONOUS) provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) mandate that the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commerce Department, and the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies cooperate with their Israeli counterparts for the purpose of consolidating U.S. and Israeli military activities in order to align efforts and avoid duplication.
https://original.antiwar.com/kucinich/2026/06/24/congress-is-preparing-to-surrender-american-sovereignty-on-the-eve-of-americas-250th-anniversary/
A few thoughts...
The legacy of Nuremberg is now reflected in the U.S. Manual of Courts-Martial, which states that service members have a duty to disobey an order that “a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal.”
Nov. 20th, 2025 marked the 80th anniversary of the trial’s start at Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice.
***************************
George W. “Dumbya” Bush, who evaded military service in Vietnam, was quick to anoint himself a “wartime president” with attending visuals and symbolism, from a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office to the “Mission Accomplished” stunt of landing aboard an aircraft carrier (delayed for at least a day in arriving back at home port after a long deployment to accommodate the political production) in a “fighter” jet but was actually a more humble and utilitarian, subsonic S-3 Viking anti-submarine aircraft, with no offensive capability other than for use against submarines. Of course, Dumbya was in a flight suit, emphasizing the codpiece.
*****************************
Isoroku Yamamoto was a young naval attaché in the United States in the 1920s, attended Harvard, got to see the country and was much impressed with its industrial might. He rose through the ranks in the Imperial Navy to top policy positions; keeping in mind his view of America, he staunchly opposed the military adventurism of the Imperial Army which would invite involvement and encounters with the U.S. Nonetheless, when the decision was made to attack Pearl Harbor, he ceased his opposition so as to serve his emperor, but in laying the plans for the attack and subsequent actions, he cautioned, “I can give you victory for the first six months, after that I promise you nothing.” How prescient. Midway took place almost seven months to the day after Dec. 7th, from there on Japan was on the defensive until Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
*******************************
“Seven Days in May” was (is) an excellent 1964 movie about a planned coup where rogue officers among the Joint Chiefs of Staff attempt to overthrow a president they judge to be “weak” on defense. How about an audacious modern day remake where a similar group of the Joint Chiefs attempt a coup against a reckless, war-drunk president and secretary of "war” because they not only threaten soldiers and sailors needlessly in pursuit of war crime-military action, but also invite Armageddon? They would invoke the “Duty to Disobey” from the Nuremberg Trials as the basis for their action.
Oh geez, I don't have time to finish reading this! But based on how far I got into the article itself (excluding comments of others), I make these points: 1.) an invading aggressor is always at a disadvantage in fighting the folks who actually live in the "lucky" country targeted for aggression. ["They may be Viet Cong, but they live there!"] [See "The Territorial Imperative" by Robert Ardrey, c. 1966--the author already felt a US loss in Viet Nam in the making.] There are always turncoats in the indigenous population, traitors, informers, "scouts" working for the invader. But there are ways for the good citizens to deal with them; 2.) Who was more ARROGANT? Emperor Nero, Kaiser Bill, Adolf Hitler or the USA as a whole? I have to answer the latter entity. This leads to delusional belief in the inevitability of the invader's victory; 3.) Related to that, being the USA means "never having to say you're sorry"!! Or that you were wrong. War Crimes tribunals be damned, paying reparations to victims-- NEVER!!; 4.) Final note on being delusional: it is said that Hitler relied on astrologers to help him make crucial wartime decisions. Reagan may have consulted his wife's astrologer. Yeah, that's the way to make sound decisions!
Hello Bill Astore... This is a Very Good Post... Thank You.... The 'Best' American War in results of objectives achieved vs expenditures, was the '91 Gulf War.. It was led by GHWB, who was shot-down twice in the Pacific, and senior Military-Officers that served in Vietnam as Junior Officers... The '91 War had limited objectives, met all of them, and was over in 100-hrs... Take-That IDF!!!... The USA Founders were suspect of large Standing Armies... They can be misused as we are finding out... Bring Back Universal Service... Knit This Country Back Together Again...
Please clarify the part of the constitution you refer to, which is absent from the article.
As officers, we take a solemn oath to all of the U.S. Constitution, not parts of it.
Yes and we enlisted soldiers swore the same oath, but I'm just unclear on what wording in the Constitution you refer to and the reasoning for why you consider it violated.
Most fundamentally, that wars to be legal must be formally declared by Congress. Wars are supposed to require the support and consent of the governed. They are not supposed to be waged at the whim of the "unitary executive."
Also, fundamentally, the military is supposed to exist to support and defend that very Constitution. The emphasis is defense--defense of laws, liberties, freedoms. Under the Constitution, war is not to be waged offensively and for interests foreign to the health of America domestically.
As our oath stipulates, we are even told to defend the Constitution against *domestic* enemies. We should think very hard about what that means. For example, dissenters exercising their rights of speech and assembly are not enemies, they are patriots. Those who attack and vilify dissenters are the real enemy.
Of course, if dissent mutates to sedition, that's an entirely different issue.
I'm happy to hear how you interpret the oath.
And the legality of the Iran War seems hinged on the constitionality of the 1973 War Powers Act, and involves legal questions that were not resolves by the Supreme Court Chadha ruling of 1983. So that is why I say I defer to the judiciary. The Dems say they will sue to enforce their Concurrent Resolution passed by both the House and Senate, so perhaps this will lead to a new Supreme Court ruling.
Thank you. I leave it to the judiciary to interpret the laws and the constitution, and believe a strong independent judiciary is the sanity of our nation.
I generally agree with your assessment of soldiers' oath to protect the Constitution, but of course there is legal grey area and that is where much or all of the controversy lies.
For example protesters are patriots yes, but can a terrorism/extremism designation justify convictions such as the alleged Antifa members sentenced to life in prison recently for their role in attacka in Texas?
Offensive wars are illegal yes, but is it possibly true that Iran represented a clear and present danger to the US? Without access to specific computer systems located on specific US bases I could never tell you accurately what our intelligence indicates, and so I cannot answer these kinds of questions personally.
So I am left to guess and to defer to the executive branch for the enforcement of laws and the Constitution.
If the information environment weren't obscure and the legal grey area were properly defined it would be simple to decide whether or not to dissent on these and other issues.
Alas, I am a mere civilian now and so this is no longer my part to play anyhow.