Had an interesting conversation with a couple of Air National Guardsmen today. Both been in for over 10 years and at least one has done a tour in Iraq.
Both feel that even though they are "Air National Guard" that they answer to "the President" and not the Governor of the State.
I thought this was odd since I always thought the national guard technically answered to their individual state leaders (so much for the guard being the well regulated militia necessary for a free state lol).
One of them is attached to Centcom and claims that he isn't paid out of the state coffers but by the feds.
Anyway... of interest was their shared belief that orders from the President or even someone above them (say a general) superseded orders from their Governor.
For example. The hypothetical question was posed: If your state actually voted to secede from the Union, and the Governor and State Legislature take steps to carry this out, and the President orders the arrest and imprisonment of said Governor and State Legislators would they follow the order?
They both said yes they would because the President was who they answered to. Even if the Governor ordered them to "stand down" they would refuse the order as long as either the President or one of their immediate commanding officers gave they order. Their logic is that as long as they are following a presidential order (or one from someone in their chain of command) then they are protected as it would be a "lawful order".
Another example was following of orders to disarm or enforce unconstitutional laws. As long as that order was given by someone above them they say they are obligated to follow the order and would do so (unless of course it was something blatantly unlawful such as gunning down civilians).
The belief is that as long as they were following orders then they were "safe" and if the orders were "unlawful" then it would be the superior that ordered them to do it who would face any type of disciplinary actions. When I brought up the war crime prosecution of nazi soldiers, and how the "I was just following orders" defense was not accepted, they said that one can't compare what the nazi's did too American soldiers carrying out their orders because they wouldn't be rounding up millions of people and killing them.
They also pointed out that the last part of the oath of service overruled the first part of the oath of service. Basically that the "uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic was rendered moot by the second part which says they must obey all lawful orders (remember any order given to them was "lawful") of those appointed above them and the President of the United States.
Keep in mind these were both senior nco's and one of them stands a very good chance of becoming an officer.
Feel safe?
Both feel that even though they are "Air National Guard" that they answer to "the President" and not the Governor of the State.
I thought this was odd since I always thought the national guard technically answered to their individual state leaders (so much for the guard being the well regulated militia necessary for a free state lol).
One of them is attached to Centcom and claims that he isn't paid out of the state coffers but by the feds.
Anyway... of interest was their shared belief that orders from the President or even someone above them (say a general) superseded orders from their Governor.
For example. The hypothetical question was posed: If your state actually voted to secede from the Union, and the Governor and State Legislature take steps to carry this out, and the President orders the arrest and imprisonment of said Governor and State Legislators would they follow the order?
They both said yes they would because the President was who they answered to. Even if the Governor ordered them to "stand down" they would refuse the order as long as either the President or one of their immediate commanding officers gave they order. Their logic is that as long as they are following a presidential order (or one from someone in their chain of command) then they are protected as it would be a "lawful order".
Another example was following of orders to disarm or enforce unconstitutional laws. As long as that order was given by someone above them they say they are obligated to follow the order and would do so (unless of course it was something blatantly unlawful such as gunning down civilians).
The belief is that as long as they were following orders then they were "safe" and if the orders were "unlawful" then it would be the superior that ordered them to do it who would face any type of disciplinary actions. When I brought up the war crime prosecution of nazi soldiers, and how the "I was just following orders" defense was not accepted, they said that one can't compare what the nazi's did too American soldiers carrying out their orders because they wouldn't be rounding up millions of people and killing them.
They also pointed out that the last part of the oath of service overruled the first part of the oath of service. Basically that the "uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic was rendered moot by the second part which says they must obey all lawful orders (remember any order given to them was "lawful") of those appointed above them and the President of the United States.
Keep in mind these were both senior nco's and one of them stands a very good chance of becoming an officer.
Feel safe?