Chang, Md, John E: Fill & Download for Free

The Presidents actual authority to use nukes is generally misunderstood by nearly everyone. What people miss here is that the President can only authorize the “legal” use of nuclear weapons. When I say “legal use” I am referring to the body of law governing their use which is controlled in the 1200 page DoD “Law of War” aka DODLOW, LOW or LOAC, which is a detailed set of rules that the military must abide by when conducting a war.Under the Law of War, if the president ordered the “illegal” use of nukes, such as an unprovoked act of aggression or an attack on a whim where no diplomatic efforts to mitigate a crisis have been made, the military is required to refuse such an order. Such orders are clearly illegal.[1]As a military commander you are required to refuse a clearly illegal order. It is illegal to follow the President's illegal order. The LOW is an easily understood common sense set of guidelines and rules that makes understanding what is legal and illegal clear in most circumstances.The military’s obligation to refuse an illegal order does not stop at nukes. This requirement applies to the use of any force by the US military. The military will only act upon a legal order not an illegal one.During his election campaign, Donald Trump said that he would kill the families of terrorists in order to win the fight against ISIS. [2] Now as the President, if he attempted to follow through with this promise, this would be a clear example of an illegal order. The military would refuse such an order. However, since campaign promises are rarely kept, this situation isn't likely to arise.If the President attempted to initiate clearly illegal plans with illegal orders he would be committing a felony crime and would be removed from office, impeached as well as facing possible prison time. This is also true for any military personnel who followed his illegal order.Members of the military have already gone on record stating that any illegal order from the President would be refused:Retired General Mike Hayden created a stir with his recent appearance on the HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher.” In the interview, Hayden told Maher that if Donald Trump wins the election and then attempts to fulfill some of his more outlandish campaign promises, the new Republican president would be blocked by the senior military. Actually what Hayden said was, “the American armed forces would refuse to act” and that the senior military will be correct in doing so because, as he put it, military commanders, “are required not to follow an unlawful order.”[3]And more validation…A former senior U.S. military officer said an order from the president to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that command is determined to be illegal.Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones.Kehler served as commander of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013.He said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about the use of nuclear weapons.Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., asked Kehler if that meant the top officer at Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails those tests.Kehler said, “Yes.”[4]Military.com reported:The top commander of U.S. nuclear forces says he would push back if President Donald Trump asked him to carry out an order he deemed “illegal.”Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten told the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday that he and Trump have discussed what would happen if the president ordered a nuclear strike that the general believed to be unlawful under international law.“I think some people think we’re stupid. We’re not stupid people,” Hyten said. “We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?”Hyten would be in charge of U.S. nuclear forces in a war. If Trump decided to launch a nuclear attack, Hyten would provide him with strike options, and the president would make his decision.“The way the process works, it’s simple,” said Hyten. “I provide advice to the president, he’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what is going to happen?“I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?'” Hyten said he and Trump would work to find another course of action.Unlike troops in authoritarian regimes, our military is obliged to disregard illegal orders or face the consequences.[5] [6]Legal scenarios vs illegal scenarios.. the difference is obvious and the results are far different.Peter Feaver, expert witness called in congressional hearing on this subject…Well, there are two scenarios that come to mind. One is that the president is woken up in the middle of the night and told he has only 30 minutes or less to make a decision because we are under attack or about to be attacked, and of course that means hundreds if not thousands of people in the national security complex who've been monitoring world events and passed through various protocols have concluded this is what's happening, and we need an answer from the president. In that context, the system is designed to be able to carry out an order in that narrow time span, and he alone would have the legal authority to give that order if he's still alive.The other scenario is that the president wakes the military up in the middle of the night and says, "Hey, I wanna do a nuclear strike," and in that setting, he would raise a lot of alarms throughout the chain of command. People would be saying, "Well, what is this? Why are we doing this?" It would require a lot more people to say, "Yes. This is the right decision."The military is trained to disobey illegal orders, so context matters. If they've woken up the president because they believe they're under attack, there's a presumption of legality if the president orders a strike. But if the president wakes them up in the middle of the night and orders a nuclear strike with no context, no crisis, no alert, then there's not a presumption that that order is legal. They would raise serious questions.[7]Military operational law attorneys are now active in all operational use of force decision processes including down to field level commanders. [8] Their role is to vet strike plans for compliance to the LOW and advise commanders on the legality of their use of force. [9] The US, as well as many other nations around the world, is committed to full compliance with the LOW when planning and executing military actions. [10] This structure is similarly deployed within our major allies command structures as well.[11]The DoD LOW is based upon a foundation of international laws making this set of rules common in principle with the rules agreed to by all the signing member states of the Geneva Convention as well as the expanded requirements agreed to in other international humanitarian laws now in place.LOW REQUIREMENTS:18.3 DUTIES OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCESEach member of the armed services has a duty to:comply with the law of war in good faith; andrefuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law of war.18.3.2 Refuse to Comply With Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations. In addition, orders should not be construed to authorize implicitly violations of law of war.18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.25 Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal.2618.4 COMMANDERS’ DUTY TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE LAW OF WAR Military commanders have a duty to take appropriate measures as are within their power to control the forces under their command for the prevention of violations of the law of war.31[12]The President never has a button that he pushes that tells the men in the silos to launch. Such orders come from within the military only. The president only can authorize the use of nukes. He cannot specifically order that nukes are used. The Law of War reserves such decisions for the commanders in charge of the weapons directly.The President can initiate pre-planned attack plans for a wide variety of scenarios with the agreement of the military if the country or one of our allies is under attack or under a clear and immediate threat of attack. Such actions are not ad-hock and cannot be invoked arbitrarily. The military will ignore an arbitrary order to initiate a pre-planned strike without an attack underway or the clear threat of an attack.The LOW places the responsibility and therefore the decision to launch any weapon or attack on the military commanders in charge of those weapons. Accountability is key in the LOW and the excuse”I was only following orders” isn’t acceptable.The President cannot order arbitrary attacks. All strike plans and the ROE (rules of engagement) of such plans must be reviewed by military lawyers for compliance to the LOW (law of war) before being engaged. (Ref LOW section 18.8 CONSIDERING LAW OF WAR OBLIGATIONS IN THE PLANNING OF MILITARY OPERATIONS). Plans not in compliance with the LOW are refused or modified as required to meet the legal requirements.[13]The military has the final say on what weapons get used on any given target. The president has no say in this matter, he can only authorize the use of nukes, The choice to use them isnt his to make.While this may seem incredible to many it isn’t. The military is a professional organization of some complexity filled with highly skilled individuals that have uncommon skill sets and experience. The reasons certain weapons are chosen in any given circumstance isn’t necessarily obvious or apparent. The President isn’t qualified to make such decisions no more than he would be qualified in telling a surgeon what tool to use when operating. The responsibility for such decision resides with the experts. Just as you sign a release for a surgeon to do his job, the military does theirs. Authorizing nukes just adds a tool to their list of choices they have to work with.All the talk of footballs and missile codes are really only about validating that the person authorizing the use of nukes is who he says he is. There are no launch codes that are involved here, only authorization and validation. Everything else has been added by Hollywood.What is illegal? (small obvious set of examples)Targeting civiliansTargeting civilian infrastructureTargeting major civil works such as dams and nuclear power plantsTargeting religious, historical or culturally significant landmarks, buildings, museums and monumentsUsing more force than required to reach the satisfactory results that are a military necessityRetaliation & revengeStarting hostilities without first trying for a peaceful solutionContinuing battle plans where significant civilian casualties are expected beyond what can be justified militarilyStarting a war of aggressionThe LOW makes using a nuclear weapon against a target within a city largely impossible. There is no conceivable justification for using a nuclear weapon on any target with a large local civilian population near by. Such targets will always be hit using conventional weapons.This again is a major misunderstanding shared by many about how a nuclear war would be conducted. Strikes will be nuclear and conventional, not just one or the other. Nukes will be exclusively used only against other nukes and military targets that justify the use of a nuclear weapons.Key points of law in the LOW:Major conceptsMilitary NecessityHumanityProportionalityDistinctionHonor1.11.1.1 Competent Authority(Right Authority) to Wage War for a Public Purpose. One longstanding criterion for a just war is that war must be ordered by a competent authority for a public purpose1.11.1.2 The Means Must Be Proportionate to the Just Cause (Proportionality – Jus ad Bellum).Proportionality involves a weighing of the contemplated actions with the justification for taking action. For example, the proportionality of the measures taken in self defense is to be judged according to the nature of the threat being addressed. Force may be used in self-defense, but only to the extent that it is required to repel the armed attack and to restore the security of the party attacked.1.11.1.3 All Peaceful Alternatives Must Have Been Exhausted (Necessity – Jus ad Bellum).The jus ad bellum condition of necessity requires that no reasonable alternative means of redress are available. For example, in exercising the right of self-defense, diplomatic means must be exhausted or provide no reasonable prospect of stopping the armed attack or threat thereof.1.11.3.1 Aggression.Aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force. Not every act of illegal use of force prohibited by Article 2(4) of the Charter constitutes aggression. Initiating a war of aggression is a serious international crime[14]Read it sometime (LOW)… it is very interesting and it will change your understanding of the military.Footnotes[1] http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf[2] Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families' - CNNPolitics[3] Will the Military Obey President Trump’s Orders?[4] Ex-general says nuclear launch order can be refused[5] US General Says He Would Resist 'Illegal' Order from Trump[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/11/20/memo-to-trump-the-military-will-not-follow-illegal-orders/?noredirect=on[7] Trump can't start a nuclear war by himself, but there's not much stopping him[8] https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=cjil[9] http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Training-Army-JA.pdf[10] https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Applying-the-Law-of-Targeting-to-the-Modern-Battlefield.pdf[11] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5200&context=faculty_scholarship[12] http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf[13] http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=cjil[14] http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf

When I was on the edge, for 16 years, I had hundreds of near death experiences. -After I figured out what was wrong and corrected things, largely. Considerable damage was done during the years on the edge. My doctor said “I’ve never seen anybody recover from so far over the edge like that”. And there are things that could go wrong with a nerve in the wrong place or something critical will just stop.The situation is that every time I die (nothing near about it) after an interlude having the experiences suitable to such a place, after that I end up here in this life at one age or another. Or else I’m dreaming all this in a coma or something. Are you there? Where is here?Suppose recurrence in this life goes on and on as Nietzsche says, Eternal Recurrence. The life experienced is always different becasue each time through a person is changed. A person can evolve within the life. Then of course there is the more traditional description of reincarnation or maybe some combination of the two.Some years ago I was asked to help a Yogi friend get ready for his unexpected death after he thought he got through the dangerous period. What it basically comes down to is 1 - recognizing when one is dead and 2 - What to do then.Here is a good solid instruction book.Amazon.com: American Book of the Dead (9780895560513): E. J. Gold, Claudio Naranjo MD, John Cunningham Lilly MD: Books

It is a world-wide phenomenon. It is not just peoples’ imagination, throw back to the fairy tales of medieval times as some would claim in a most superficial manner. It is not due to cultural beliefs and legends that may have somehow continued to influence human minds to concoct all this whether consciously or sub-consciously. There is just so much of information known related to unexplained events, very poor analysis of data, unscientific dismissive attitude from all that we know and have been exposed to now, that a really disturbing phenomenon dealing with the unknown emerges here. Events have involved extremely advanced technology that we are not known to have. The UFO phenomenon goes back thousands of years, and has become only more concerning with associated abduction events over the last sixty years, and a hierarchy of circumstantial evidence related to very strange events. Most of the landmark cases of UFO encounters have remained classified, with many getting declassified over the years and listed as unexplained still. Many of these have had associated abduction related matters that have been puzzling and disturbing raising more questions than can be answered prosaically. The late Dr. John E. Mack, a respected Harvard psychiatrist did a landmark case-history study where he found most of the individuals involved in the said ‘abduction events’ of normal psyche, who had life-altering changes that they had to learn to cope with. All this points towards a transforming influence of something markedly anomalous and strange that we really need to study further, and continue to gather data on rather than just superficially, and ignorantly dismiss as imaginary… Kaiser T, MD.