At the core, I think my disagreement with Zachowon is that I think that the military as an institution is effectively part of and loyal to the system. He doesn't. I'm not sure that you don't- your earlier comments didn't really indicate this to me, so we might not actually disagree on this (although we probably have a different perspective on it).
No, I agree with your assessment. The military will (and should) understand that their duty is to enforce the decisions of the Chain of Command, National Policy and the Constitution. It's right there in the oath. "... support and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. "
The support part ties into National Policy, in the sense that the elected or appointed representatives of the government make the determination of that policy, and the Chain of Command are the officers appointed over the individual. Once someone takes that oath, they're bound to subordinate their personal views as a citizen to the national and service policies while conducting their duties. The military exists to enforce national policy, not establish it. As such, someone's personal views on certain topics don't matter
at all when there is an established policy on the issue.
So, in the spirit of getting things back to the actual topics being discussed, some examples for you 1) The President has ordered a ban on trans people joining the military. Your superior officers (and up the chain of command) are trying to slow this down and limit it's extent. You've been asked to sign off on something related by them, say a trans person's recruitment.
This example comes back to policies. Policy development and implementation are nearly glacial, but there are interim instructions that start at the Joint Chiefs of Staff level and trickle down, implemented at each level of command within an amount of time. Generally you'll see something like 60 days from start to finish. Following those, the Doctrine Nerds get to work crafting the changes to the actual regulations. For instance, I was a senior NCO while the Obama-era changes to allow Trans individuals to openly serve came about. I saw all the varied interpretations between the President's announcement of the policy change to the actual guidance for implementation. Initially it was doom and gloom in the senior offices, complaints about how slackers would be "changing their gender to get a better score on the PT Test for the promotion board" etc. Then the actual policy came out, and wow, amazing. Nothing in there allowed anyone who didn't have a psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a
military psychiatrist followed by an approved treatment plan to receive any kind of official recognition of their preferred gender. They're required to maintain their physical appearance in accordance with regulations based on their gender as recognized by the military, which would not change until their treatment plan had been completed
and the reassignment was approved by a medical review board (which board are honestly more likely to just put you out of the military than keep you in, unless you're somehow absolutely critical to ongoing operations).
But, assuming the hypothetical, I'd refuse to sign it if it clearly was contrary to what should be the Commander's Intent. Which is to say, that if the President has issued an order in his capacity as commander in chief (not necessarily in the form of an Executive Order; it gets complex...), and the requisite policy instructions have come down to my level (since I was never a member of the JCS), and my commander
asked me to sign something that was against those policy letters, I'd say "Sir, I don't think this is authorized anymore based on the USSOCOM policy letter from last month. You'll have to sign that yourself." Which is actually how it works.. all subordinate authority to sign documents or issue orders is delegated from the next higher level of the chain of command, and those people who are the superiors are able to sign it themselves if they want to. So if they're pushing for me to sign for it for some reason, it's because they're afraid to do it themselves or something, in which case I'm not going to cave in to them.
2) The President has ordered that surgeries/hormones for trans people not be funded. Your superior officers (and so on up) wish to fund some and have ordered you to sign off on them. 3) The President has ordered that surgeries/hormones for trans people be funded. A representative has said that pushing this through without congress approving of this use of funding is "constitutionally dubious." Your superior officers (and so on up) have ordered you to sign off on them. And since Zachowon is of the opinion that antidepressants would be some special line in the sand, here, how about 4) and 5): the same questions as 2) and 3) but replacing funding surgeries/hormones with allowing and funding antidepressants.
So, most of these are still covered under my previous response, but one thing I'll point out is that funding ANYTHING is a huge pain in the ass in the military. It's a whole separate line of approvals, requests, proposals, and trackers with entirely different chains of authority and including pecuniary responsibility that can make you directly and personally liable for any mishandled funds. Getting me to sign for anything dealing with money was a LOT harder than the other stuff you mentioned
Additionally, on some more general stuff that's been discussed- 6) The supreme court has overturned it's 2007 decision against bussing. Some White parents and children are refusing to comply. The national guard has been called in, but is also refusing to enforce the decision. You have been called in to enforce it.
So.. like.. that's a hyperbolic example. It's on par with suggesting that a fire department might be tasked with patrolling a neighborhood to fight crime. It wouldn't happen. If you're trying to liken it to the use of the military to enforce the civil rights act, in that case the military was used to protect people from rioters who had already committed violence against kids trying to go to school. The National Guard, who aren't directly members of the U.S. Military (their Commander in Chief is the State Governor unless authorized by congress to be activated as a national military asset) were refusing to participate at the time, and so Ike used the Insurrection Act to send in the military. Authorized use, and enforcing national policy.
7) The supreme court has overturned it's 2007 decision against bussing. Some White parents and children are refusing to comply. You are in the national guard, and have been called in to enforce it.
Depends. Like I said above, the NG are different.
8) You have been ordered to tell your superior officer if you see any of the people you command with a list of "extremist symbols." You see one of them with one- specifically, a "Pepe the Frog" symbol.
If it's on a list of "If you see this symbol provide information to the Intel guys" then yeah. Not sure why this hits your list of potential hotbuttons.
9) The FBI suspects that one of the people you command has an online account where he expresses nationalist ideas. You have been ordered to assist them in their investigation. You are concerned that if the investigation is successful they will leak the information to antifa or the press
So.. funny thing here, jurisdictionally the FBI has to work with the Army CID (Criminal Investigations Division), or NCIS (same thing, for the Navy, arguably better known because of those TV shows) when dealing with active duty Soldiers. Functionally, they might come interview the unit Commander, and possibly direct supervisors or associates, but "assisting in the investigation" would be a reach. If the investigators made some comment that amounted to "Then, if we get enough information we'll doxx him to Antifa" in front of me, I'd report the shit out of them in an instant, but the same would go for if they said "Then if we get enough information we'll doxx him on The Seitch." (where I'm sure they'd earn a permaban if they did.)
10) One of the people you command has been linked to an online account where he expresses nationalist ideas. FBI would like to interrogate him over this, and you have been ordered by a superior officer to order him to do talk to them.
This is a legal order. In fact, CID could take him into custody for questioning without even informing the Chain of Command, based on their delegated authority that would meet up with the Soldier in Question's Chain of Command somewhere above.
11) You have been ordered to jail this person for a week in solitary confinement, without any charges or formal legal action against him, and you have been ordered to order him to sign an NDA about it.
Illegal order. Confinement requires a written order from a Commander with UCMJ Authority, as well as an O6 and JAG review and concurrence. You also can't order someone to sign an NDA, you can only make it contingent on access to things; for instance I've signed several NDA's for the Army, regarding details of programs and activities. If I hadn't, they just wouldn't have let me have access to things.
Overall, I get the direction you're going, and the preponderance of my responses would come in the form of "There'll be a Regulation, Policy, or aspect of U.S. Code that you can fall back on to tell you when you can or can't tell that person to pound sand." Without giving a class on Military Ethics, DoD Regulations, and applicable portions of U.S. Code (Title 10 is a fascinating read (/sarcasm) I can't really cover all of it. I do feel that the existing moral and ethical standards that the military
as an organization (individuals may vary, as in any organization) adheres to are sufficient to ensure that they'll remain in their lane unless directed out of it, and will hopefully steer back to what they should be doing as quickly as possible.