–Could the Air Force Pilot and aircraft commander ignore all protocol, get on the plane, turn over the engines and get flying? Sure they could. The paperwork is just a set of administrative controls, that tie into meeting other requirements. Paper ain’t going to stop thrust from being generated, and that aircraft from rolling forward. But that aircraft, without the paperwork to satisfy other requirements, will not get far. Either the tower will not grant clearance, armed fighter escorts will be sent to force that aircraft to land (“Hey, someone’s stealing Air Force One!!”), or their trip will be quickly shortened because nobody loaded enough fuel for the flight. “Could?” Yes, an attempt could be made.
– Would the Air Force Pilot commit to such an action? Even if he/she wanted to help the Defecto-POTUS make an escape, after evaluating the risks and requirements, realizing that they won’t get that far, I wildly doubt any rational, non-suicidal pilot would follow those orders. “Would”? No. A competent pilot will realize that “could” ends at the first unmet need (fuel, air clearance, landing rights, and the need to get those pesky F-15s off my tail).
In response to your earlier post, griffin1977, there have been multiple forms of Military Law over the generations. I don’t know if the text of the Revolutionary-era war is copied into the current UCMJ. I’ve never done a side-by-side text comparison. I doubt the text is copied, but the principles of the crimes have: “misbehavior in front of the enemy,” “surrender,” “dueling,” “larceny,” “mistreatment of prisoners,” etc. Wrong is wrong. How you describe “wrong” depends on the parlance/lexicon of the time.
Tripler
The UCMJ is a fascinating read, sometimes.
And what would the court find him guilty of? He basically says “I am a pilot trained and equipped to fly the president around. The president, my commander in chief, gave me an order to fly somewhere and I carried it out”. He’s not being order to blow up civilians, or shut down congress, what is it about that order that makes it illegal?
In the civilian realm absolutely, in the military realm not so much. Everything he has ordered the military to do he has done, even the really dumb stuff. Be it pull out of Syria or pointlessly hang out at the border. That’s not a criticism of the military. That’s the way the office of the president is setup, it was intended that the executive branch should have far more freedom in military/foreign policy matters than domestic matters.
No one is stealing it. It is taking the POTUS on official (if rather spur of the moment) business. The fighter escorts also work for the president, why would they disobey a direct order from their commander in chief to go back to base and land immediately?
Well, for one, taking flight without filing a valid flight plan or receiving clearance to take off, both of which are reasons to suspend a commercial aviation license and disciplinary action for military pilots, up to and including revocation of flight status and suspension or courts martial.
You seem to hold the notion that the President can tell anyone in government service to do something and as long as it is not explicitly illegal they have to immediately comply without any independent critical thought or disagreement. I know Trump himself believes this bizarre idea, possibly stemming from the fact that he has previously surrounded himself only with supplicants and legal counsel who agree to his every whim no matter how ill-considered or consequential, but in the military and career civil service have protocols and processes that they are required to follow (even if they aren’t laws per se) and they aren’t going to unquestioningly violate them just because the President says so without some extenuating reason. At a minimum there is going to be some discussion by senior officers who are responsible for Air Force One or whatever other government aircraft is being flown as to whether such orders are safe to comply with and have some kind of rationale.
Every policy decision Trump has made regarding military action has been in counsel with his DecSef and other military advisors, and very likely conveyed and affirmed by the DecSef. This doesn’t mean he can just walk onto Andrews AFB and tell every O-6 to stand on their heads and expect slavish compliance. Nor can he demand a direct flight to Moscow with no prior coordination or planning and not face at least some degree of objection as to the difficulties and risks involved.
Although the President is ostensibly “The Most Powerful Person in the World”, from a practical standpoint they are more often hamstrung by their responsibilities than free to invoke their authority without restraint, and this is especially true when it comes to anything pertaining to personal safety, security of the office, or anything that could result in significant hazard. There is just no way in reality that the scenario of the o.p. (“the President showed up at Andrews AFB with a lot of suitcases and family members and said ‘juice up the jet and take me to Moscow’”) happens without someone objecting and insisting on formulating an actual plan. And while a president under indictment cannot be legally restrained while in office (presumably, at least), appearing to flee from justice would certainly fall under the scenarios in which the 25th Amendment could be invoked and the acting Vice President or designated authority could countermand any orders given by the President.
There was a previous thread on this. There is no policy then or now that stops the president, alone, ordering a nuclear launch. That is ultimately his decision as Commander in Chief.
On the hand the idea that senior military officer can give his subordinate a direct order and that, if the order is legal, he has to ultimately obey it, even if he disagrees isn’t that bizarre.
That is why I brought it up. The order was not followed, nor was Nixon formally removed from office in order to make it not happen. Kissinger et al. simply dealt with it. This is evidence supporting Stranger On A Train’s second paragraph.
Well they delayed until he was sober (on Kissinger’s pleading) , he hadn’t ordered a strike, he just asked them to select targets. If he had outright ordered a strike, then they would have carried it out.
It would be interesting if someone linked to the original text of the 1974 directive the books tell us was in fact sent from Nixon’s chief of staff to relevant military commanders instructing them to ignore any orders (explicitly including nuclear strikes) not coming through the usual chain of command. This was despite the fact, discussed in the other thread, that the President and the President alone has the authority to order nuclear launches and whatever else was mentioned in the telex. People deciding whether there was anything rational in something Nixon had said and whether or how to follow up on it was evidently not a one-time thing (e.g. see the Henry A. Kissinger Telephone Conversations Transcripts for examples of Nixon ordering various bombing attacks).
As I understand it. Seeing as it was completely illegal and unconstitutionally, it was done informally verbally rather than written down to leave evidence (note his concerns were also that Nixon might try and order troops into Washington to protect his regime) :
It is clear that the situation with Nixon demanding a nuclear strike that was (extralegally) countermanded by Kissinger and Haig was an exceptional situation where those advisors used their discretion and relationships to forestall an ill-considered direction by a sitting President who was not sober and in right mind. It is also true, from a more than cursory reading of presidential history, that this is no a unique case; Al Haig in particular is infamous for his overreach of authority. We can similarly expect that a panicked or raving President Trump would be at least questioned by the senior officers in charge of making any flight possible if for no other reason that to assess the safety and legality of such an order, and in the case of an instruction of questionable veracity, seek outside guidance.
Col. Bean “Hey, we’ve got Eagle’s Nest here, and he’s insisting on an immediate flight to Sheremetyevo. Is everything okay at the White House?”
Maj. Coffee: “What did they say?”
Col. Bean: “Melania said to make sure the headwind doesn’t blow him back into Canada on his way out.”
Maj. Coffee: “Well, I guess we send him, then. After all, she’s definitely in charge.”
V. Putin: “More zhan you may zink, Amerikanski.”
Col. Bean: “Putin! Where did you come from? And why are you sporting such a cheesy accent?”
V. Putin: “I just came to wizz off Zee Donald, and alzo have convo wizz Zee Zuckerberg and Ollie Norzz. Vee haz vera, vera muzz to speak about.”
Thing is, you can hop in a limo and drive off to MickeyD’s in seconds, but AF-1 will take at least half an hour just to fire up and taxi to the end of the runway. During this time, the crew will report to their superiors that they are proceeding with doing this thing. The President may be able to order the flight, but he cannot successfully order the crew to maintain silence – he can try, but there are too many people involved for this to happen with no one saying anything. Hell, the Secret Service will know where he is, and they are not going to keep mum about it.
So the flight crew have a choice: refuse and face charges of insubordination, or fly to Russia with no hope of ever returning home but to end up in prison. So they will report the command to the brass, and if the brass tell them to hold on a sec there, there is a high probability that they will do what the brass tell them to do. I mean, the people in Russia talk funny and even though it gets cold, they still refuse to heat up the beet soup.
Without the proper planning to inform all necessary parties of the use of a National Asset–even if it is spur of the moment business–all it will take is one person to suspect/say “Theft!” for multiple agencies to step in to “investigate” (some with the appropriate firepower to compel the “investigation”).
The OP postulated that the President is “running ahead of a subpoena” and “Formally under indictment”. Evasion of justice or fleeing an indictment is not official business.
You are assuming too much. NORTHCOM would ask, “Is the POTUS under duress? Is he a hostage?”; “Is the POTUS actually on board?”; “Where is this aircraft headed?”; “What is the risk to the public?” . . . There are too many unidentified variables that make simply turning back and RTB a non-thought. Given a presumed “unplanned” VC-25 flight, NORTHCOM (who directs the military assets and provides military assistance to Homeland Security responses) will be the judge on what’s going on, and will make appropriate decisions. Hypothetically, if the aircraft took off without all of the prerequisites in place (let’s just start with fuel), then negotiations would begin to bring the aircraft and [the still-] POTUS back to the ground safely.
I know what you’re thinking. . .“The POTUS can just order a refueling jet to top off the tanks in flight!” Well sure, but NORTHCOM would have alerted the Watch Officers in the Pentagon of the situation, who would alert the National Command Authorities, and thus word spreads to the political authorities for the inevitable “incapability to exercise his duties” actions. Realistically, NORTHCOM will order the pilots to “escort the aircraft” to a ‘safe haven’ base “for safety of the President,” and to ignore all calls to turn away from the escorted 747; and that’s on the genial side of things. A step up is “compelling it to land.” NORTHCOM would solve the immediate situation, without escalating it unnecessarily. Ensuring the safety of POTUS is the primary goal.
Tripler
Thanks eschereal, it’s dinnertime and now I’m hungry. I need to warm up my limo. . .
As far as re-fueling and overflight permissions, he could go straight from DC to Alaska, refuel at Elmendorf or Eielsen and then be in Russian territory in minutes. He’d have to re-fuel again before reaching Moscow, not sure where that might happen. But he’d be “safe” then, as long as Putin considered him useful.
Interesting scenario. For some reason, I had him flying to Sochi, imagining one of the dachas used in the past Olympics.
I wildly doubt they’d deny in-flight refueling. Gotta keep the POTUS alive, gotta keep the aircraft from crashing. On the ground, however? Different story . .
I reckon they could, depending on how soon the word got out that his flight was for “less-than-official” purposes as you posed in the OP. If he’s slick enough to fill out misleading paperwork to get just enough planning and support done without raising eyebrows, he might get just enough of what he needs to fly across the Bering Strait. (Assuming he also stays off the Tweet-machine.)
However if someone raises an eyebrow or suspects more. . . nefarious purposes, then by alerting the NCA and eventually NORTHCOM, NORTHCOM could ground the plane and/or keep it grounded by refusing to refuel it or grant clearance to fly. It was brought up before, upthread, that not only are you losing a physical person (the fleeing POTUS), but an aircraft, as well as Top Secret cryptographical equipment. All this, of course, would all be in the midst of a maelstrom of a Constitutional Crisis.
But with Russia so close to Alaska, he could doglsled his way to the coast, and then kayak over to Siberia.
