Is there a law to the effect of: no member of the military can lie to any civilian citizen?

[BlooInBloo]

If not, I think there should be.

[RB TexLa]

1. So if you ask them where troops are being deployed in a war

or where a surprise attack is going to be and they know you think they should have to tell you?

[ret5hd]

3. Yeah, that's what he meant. of course.

[BlooInBloo]

8. They can not answer. Duh.

[RB TexLa]

12. Then what is the purpose of your proposed law?

[BlooInBloo]

16. Um, to ensure that anything the military tells civilians is not a lie.

[Exiled in America]

9. Red Herring. They can simply DECLINE TO ANSWER.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Why wasn't that obvious? I thought it was so obvious it didn't need saying...

... My bad - I forgot I was on DU.

[Exiled in America]

18. No, I was defending you... I was sure you assumed that was obvious. It should have been.

[BlooInBloo]

20. I know - I was shamelessly seeking validation. :)

[uppityperson]

2. I don't think there is.

[Richardo]

4. We call it 'The 8th Commandment'*

Other than that, probably not.

* Catholics and Lutherans only. All others: 'The 9th Commandment'

[hack89]

5. Why? nt

[BlooInBloo]

14. abstractly: to further enshrine the desired power structure (civilian rule)...

... specifically, to avoid any further bullshit like Lynch, Tillman, etc.

[hack89]

17. Would you allow and exception for classified material?

or is it your intent that any question no matter what the subject needs to be answered?

[BlooInBloo]

19. I didn't say word *1* about requiring an answer to a question.

[hack89]

23. Then I am not sure what the point is.

You as an ordinary citizen should have no special power over another citizen even if he is in the military. I see no way to enforce such a law so I see no point to it.

[BlooInBloo]

24. #16. If you see no point in that, that's the way it goes.

[hack89]

25. If you tell how you think this is even remotely

constitutional I would be interested. I would also be interested to know how you would enforce it and what kind of penalties you envision.

[BlooInBloo]

26. I don't see what the alleged constitutional issue even *is*, and enforcement wouldn't be...

... any different, generally speaking, from, say, lying to Congress, or lying to the FBI or whatever.

We've got service people telling Congress they were ordered to lie to civilians. So convene a grand jury, issue subpoenas, take depositions, and hand down indictments.

I just don't see what the problem is.

[hack89]

27. There is no need for your law

You are asking for an investigation of soldiers who were ordered to lie to civilians. I am assuming the people who gave the orders to lie are covered by existing laws regarding impeding investigations. I am also assuming that if soldiers lie while under oath they are also covered by existing law.

You are right to call for an investigation - I don't see the need for your law.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Sigh. Yes there is. In general, the lie envisioned needn't be about something *else* illegal.

EDIT: "Yes there is" in the sense that it's not redundant, as you claim. You're still free to maintain its lack of utility, just not on the grounds of redundancy.

[hack89]

29. So lying outside of an investigation or judicial proceeding

will be illegal? In any circumstance? You really want to criminalize lying but only against soldiers?

Cut the sighing BS - it is childish. If you don't want to talk then simply say so and I'll move on.

[Hosnon]

6. I do not think such a law would be very wise. The advantages of the military

having to tell the truth would rarely outweigh the disadvantages. I prefer they do what they need to do with an appropriate level of Congressional oversight.

[BlooInBloo]

10. I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to not answer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. LOL

As a general rule, if you see some brass talking on television, assume that they're lying.

[depakid]

13. If there were, we'd have to build a LOT more prisons eom

[stirlingsliver]

15. On Any Subject?

I think such a law -- if it said that no member of the military could ever lie about ANY subject -- would be unenforceable.

And why should members of them military be held to a standard we do not apply to Members of Congress and the President?

[damntexdem]

21. How about, no civilian president can lie to a member of the military ...

about the reasons for sending the military to war?

[BlooInBloo]

22. If useful at all, it would be the topic of another law.

[TahitiNut]

30. Nope. But there's a law in the UCMJ that makes a "false report" punishable by imprisonment.

A "false report" is one of the more grievous offenses in the military ... and includes lying to a superior officer, making false entries in a log, declaring "all present or accounted for" in a muster where someone is AWOL, and a host of other "white lies" that might be ignored by civilians.