View Full Version : Question for current and retired military and police
Crepitus
11-04-2015, 10:45 PM
This is a question that has come up in discussion lately:
If "martial law" were declared in all or part of the US in what you considered an unlawful manner, to quell political dissidents for instance, would you comply with orders to use force against US citizens?
Peter1469
11-04-2015, 10:51 PM
I would follow the oath that I gave when I was commissioned.
Oath of Commissioned Officers
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
out to enter; So help me God."
Have any officers challenged the oath in court?
Peter1469
11-04-2015, 10:56 PM
Have any officers challenged the oath in court?
Not that I know of. Enlisted have and lost.
Good question.
I am a private party so if the City cops told me to take my pistol with me and shoot down all Muslims, I sure would impose my own thinking and just may not do it.
i swore an oath to defend the constitution, and that's what i would do.
Crepitus
11-04-2015, 11:08 PM
I would follow the oath that I gave when I was commissioned.
Oath of Commissioned Officers
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
out to enter; So help me God."
That's not a yes or a no.
Ethereal
11-04-2015, 11:08 PM
I would never obey an unlawful order.
Peter1469
11-04-2015, 11:12 PM
That's not a yes or a no.
That is for me and my conscious to come to terms with, probably with only a few seconds to make a relevant decision. For better or worse, that is what they train us for.
maineman
11-04-2015, 11:35 PM
I would follow the oath that I gave when I was commissioned.
Oath of Commissioned Officers
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
out to enter; So help me God."
I agree.
maineman
11-04-2015, 11:39 PM
I certainly can imagine a scenario where some domestic enemies of the Constitution were U.S. citizens.
Standing Wolf
11-04-2015, 11:52 PM
The question is just too vaguely worded, and there are factors one would have to know in order to provide any kind of informed or intelligent response. How much and what manner of force? In order to prevent or facilitate what? Am I being ordered to shoot looters and arsonists, or to take some violent action against non-violent protesters? Break down people's doors and take their guns, or protect lives and property? I took a variation of that oath, myself, every time I re-enlisted in the Navy over the course of twenty-one years, and nowhere does it mention an obligation to follow unlawful orders - however high up in the chain of command they are coming from.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:53 AM
I would follow the oath that I gave when I was commissioned.
Oath of Commissioned Officers
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
out to enter; So help me God."
The Constitution makes the current occupier of the white house commander in chief of the armed forces.
meaning general officers in the pentagon would do what obumer tells them to
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:56 AM
I certainly can imagine a scenario where some domestic enemies of the Constitution were U.S. citizens.
I can think of one living in the white house right now
Crepitus
11-05-2015, 02:07 AM
The question is just too vaguely worded, and there are factors one would have to know in order to provide any kind of informed or intelligent response. How much and what manner of force? In order to prevent or facilitate what? Am I being ordered to shoot looters and arsonists, or to take some violent action against non-violent protesters? Break down people's doors and take their guns, or protect lives and property? I took a variation of that oath, myself, every time I re-enlisted in the Navy over the course of twenty-one years, and nowhere does it mention an obligation to follow unlawful orders - however high up in the chain of command they are coming from.
This is why I threw in the phrase "unlawful manner".
maineman
11-05-2015, 07:30 AM
The Constitution makes the current occupier of the white house commander in chief of the armed forces.
meaning general officers in the pentagon would do what obumer tells them to
only if he gave them lawful orders.
maineman
11-05-2015, 07:31 AM
I can think of one living in the white house right now
and I can think of one whose words I am responding to at this very moment.
Common
11-05-2015, 08:28 AM
Anyone that would blindly obey an order to use force against citizens that he can see is not doing anything to merit it would be a criminal in my opinion.
The only answer to this poll is it depends on the circumstances as you are "seeing" them
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:32 AM
The Constitution makes the current occupier of the white house commander in chief of the armed forces.
meaning general officers in the pentagon would do what obumer tells them to
Are you confusing the oath for officers with the oath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment)for enlisted members of the military?
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_(armed_forces)) appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice). So help me God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_help_me_God)."
If you can read my prior post about the oath sworn by commissioned officers, it has no such requirement.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 08:47 AM
only if he gave them lawful orders.
Only a pack of ambulance chasing lawyers and 5 unelected judges on the supreme court can say what is or isnt a lawful order.
The career politicians and obumer butt kissers in the pentagon will assume the orders are lawful.
And so on down the line till it reaches squad level.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 08:49 AM
Anyone that would blindly obey an order to use force against citizens that he can see is not doing anything to merit it would be a criminal in my opinion.
Only after the fact and only then if obumer loses the war and ends up hanging from a bridge like mussilini.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 08:53 AM
Are you confusing the oath for officers with the oath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment)for enlisted members of the military?
If you can read my prior post about the oath sworn by commissioned officers, it has no such requirement.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that commissioned officers are independent contractors who only have to obey orders from obumer they agree with.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:58 AM
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that commissioned officers are independent contractors who only have to obey orders from obumer they agree with.
Ok, Mac.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 08:58 AM
Ok, Mac.
Ok peter
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:07 AM
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that commissioned officers are independent contractors who only have to obey orders from obumer they agree with.
can you offer an explanation why the oaths of office for enlisted and officers are different?
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 09:18 AM
can you offer an explanation why the oaths of office for enlisted and officers are different?
Is that your way of proving that commissioned officers do not have to obey the commander in chief?
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:19 AM
Is that your way of proving that commissioned officers do not have to obey the commander in chief?
I asked you a simple question. Rather than deflect, can't you try to answer it?
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:21 AM
but to answer your question: commissioned officers can always resign their commission if they feel they are being asked to do something illegal or immoral that goes against their conscience. Enlisted personnel have no such option.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 09:21 AM
I asked you a simple question. Rather than deflect, can't you try to answer it?
I'm not deflecting.
The question is do commisdioned officers have to obey the president or not?
You seem to be saying they dont.
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:21 AM
I'm not deflecting.
The question is do commisdioned officers have to obey the president or not?
You seem to be saying they dont.
I answered your question. Now answer mine.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 09:24 AM
but to answer your question: commissioned officers can always resign their commission if they feel they are being asked to do something illegal or immoral that goes against their conscience. Enlisted personnel have no such option.
Not many officers promoted by obumer would resign.
I see your point but obummer will just go down the line till he finds a willing flunky.
and he wont have to look far.
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:25 AM
still didn't answer my question. why am I not surprised?
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:26 AM
Not many officers promoted by obumer would resign.
unsupported opinion
I see your point but obummer will just go down the line till he finds a willing flunky.
and he wont have to look far.
disgustingly anti-military AND an unsupported opinion.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 09:27 AM
The oaths are different for a reason. Officers have a duty to the Constitution. Enlisted have a duty to the officers they serve under.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 09:29 AM
unsupported opinion
disgustingly anti-military AND an unsupported opinion.
It's not anti military.
I know you think anything you believe is absolutely true and if you say it that ends the discussion.
But it would be very hard to impossible for the entire officer corp to turn on obumer.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 09:31 AM
The oaths are different for a reason. Officers have a duty to the Constitution. Enlisted have a duty to the officers they serve under.
And to the Constitution.
And to the UCMJ.
But officer or enlisted the US military is bred to obey orders.
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:32 AM
It's not anti military.
I know you think anything you believe is absolutely true and if you say it that ends the discussion.
But it would be very hard to impossible for the entire officer corp to turn on obumer.
not if he gave them sufficient reason to.
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:33 AM
And to the Constitution.
And to the UCMJ.
But officer or enlisted the US military is bred to obey orders.
lawful orders only.
maineman
11-05-2015, 09:34 AM
It's not anti military.
I know you think anything you believe is absolutely true and if you say it that ends the discussion.
But it would be very hard to impossible for the entire officer corp to turn on obumer.
question Mac.... did you ever serve?
Standing Wolf
11-05-2015, 10:02 AM
The oaths are different for a reason. Officers have a duty to the Constitution. Enlisted have a duty to the officers they serve under.
If you bothered to read the oath of enlistment, you would see that it begins with a clause to support and defend the Constitution, as well.
silvereyes
11-05-2015, 10:14 AM
Ok, Mac.
Can we threadban the word obummer?
Just astin.....;)
birddog
11-05-2015, 10:41 AM
Can we threadban the word obummer?
Just astin.....;)
Would you prefer "The Kenyan?"
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 10:43 AM
lawful orders only.
Do you expect a private with a ged to decide in the heat of combat what 50 lawyers cannot agree on after the fact?
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 10:44 AM
Can we threadban the word obummer?
Just astin.....;)
Scurry over to the Mac-Free Safe Room and you can have anything your little lib heart desires.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 10:46 AM
question Mac.... did you ever serve?
Thats none of your business and has squat to do with understanding the Constitution.
maineman
11-05-2015, 11:04 AM
Thats none of your business and has squat to do with understanding the Constitution.
it has everything to do with your assertion as to what members of the military are "bred" to do. Without actually serving, such a statement is born from ignorance.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 11:08 AM
it has everything to do with your assertion as to what members of the military are "bred" to do. Without actually serving, such a statement is born from ignorance.
Are you claiming to be a military vet?
If so this is the internet and anyone can claim to be anything without fear of being proved a liar.
maineman
11-05-2015, 11:32 AM
Are you claiming to be a military vet?
If so this is the internet and anyone can claim to be anything without fear of being proved a liar.
I AM a vet.... and proud of it. And, if you bet me enough money, I'll link you to a little Youtube video I made a few years back on a bet with another chickenhawk.... which shows me holding my retired military ID card.
Now again... how do YOU claim to know what military personnel are "bred" to do?
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 11:38 AM
If you bothered to read the oath of enlistment, you would see that it begins with a clause to support and defend the Constitution, as well.
But you have to read the entire thing....
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 11:39 AM
Do you expect a private with a ged to decide in the heat of combat what 50 lawyers cannot agree on after the fact?
That is why the enlisted oath differs from the officer oath....
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 11:40 AM
Scurry over to the Mac-Free Safe Room and you can have anything your little lib heart desires.
What is a Mac-Free Safe Room. There is no such forum here. Are you thinking of another site?
birddog
11-05-2015, 11:52 AM
I AM a vet.... and proud of it. And, if you bet me enough money, I'll link you to a little Youtube video I made a few years back on a bet with another chickenhawk.... which shows me holding my retired military ID card.
Now again... how do YOU claim to know what military personnel are "bred" to do?
I don't agree with your political views, but you have a valid question. A person should be proud to answer if they are a Vet, especially if they served honorably as we did. Also, non-vets simply served their country in other ways hopefully.
maineman
11-05-2015, 11:56 AM
I don't agree with your political views, but you have a valid question. A person should be proud to answer if they are a Vet, especially if they served honorably as we did. Also, non-vets simply served their country in other ways hopefully.
thank you... and I think you'll also agree that non-vets really cannot speak with any real knowledge about what military personnel are "bred" to do.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:22 PM
I AM a vet.... and proud of it. And, if you bet me enough money, I'll link you to a little Youtube video I made a few years back on a bet with another chickenhawk.... which shows me holding my retired military ID card.
Now again... how do YOU claim to know what military personnel are "bred" to do?
Ok, Maineman CLAIMS to be a vet.
Got it.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 12:23 PM
Ok, Maineman CLAIMS to be a vet.
Got it.
Mac claims to have not served.
Got it.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:24 PM
I don't agree with your political views, but you have a valid question. A person should be proud to answer if they are a Vet, especially if they served honorably as we did. Also, non-vets simply served their country in other ways hopefully.
I'm not the third dog in Maineman's dog and pony show.
Its none of his business or anyone else's.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:25 PM
Mac claims to have not served.
Got it.
You are a liar.
Crepitus
11-05-2015, 12:25 PM
Scurry over to the Mac-Free Safe Room and you can have anything your little lib heart desires.
Oooh! Do we actually have one of those? (he says hopefully)
EDIT: Nuts.
What is a Mac-Free Safe Room. There is no such forum here. Are you thinking of another site?
HoneyBadger
11-05-2015, 12:28 PM
The oaths are different for a reason. Officers have a duty to the Constitution. Enlisted have a duty to the officers they serve under.
That is absolutely incorrect. The enlisted oath of office binds soldiers first and foremost to the Constitution. Believe it or not, enlisted personnel really don't view officers as infallible demi-gods. :grin: Smart officers understand that they absolutely need the cooperation and respect of enlisted personnel or their lives will be made a living hell.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 12:32 PM
Have any officers challenged the oath in court?
What is there to challenge?
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 12:33 PM
You are a liar.
And you are left on the bell curve. Beta boy.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 12:35 PM
That is absolutely incorrect. The enlisted oath of office binds soldiers first and foremost to the Constitution. Believe it or not, enlisted personnel really don't view officers as infallible demi-gods. :grin: Smart officers understand that they absolutely need the cooperation and respect of enlisted personnel or their lives will be made a living hell.
I understand the dynamic between enlisted and officer. I was both.
The legal underpinnings of the oaths are as I described them. It doesn't matter if anyone realizes that or not.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:36 PM
And you are left on the bell curve. Beta boy.
Thats your opinion.
But your lie is a fact
I never said yes or no about my military service
Cletus
11-05-2015, 12:39 PM
The oaths are different for a reason. Officers have a duty to the Constitution. Enlisted have a duty to the officers they serve under.
No.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 12:40 PM
Do you expect a private with a ged to decide in the heat of combat what 50 lawyers cannot agree on after the fact?
Yes, and he is more likely to get it right.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 12:42 PM
Thats your opinion.
But your lie is a fact
I never said yes or no about my military service
Piss off, beta boy.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:43 PM
Yes, and he is more likely to get it right.
No, he's more likely to follow orders.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 12:43 PM
No.
What is your expatiation?
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:44 PM
Piss off, beta boy.
You can't win on the topic so want to win the personal pissing contest instead?
Go play in traffic.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 12:46 PM
You can't win on the topic so want to win the personal pissing contest instead?
Go play in traffic.
It isn't a contest. I made my point.
Others drooled on themselves.
Got anything intelligent to add to the topic?
Standing Wolf
11-05-2015, 12:49 PM
That is absolutely incorrect. The enlisted oath of office binds soldiers first and foremost to the Constitution. Believe it or not, enlisted personnel really don't view officers as infallible demi-gods. :grin: Smart officers understand that they absolutely need the cooperation and respect of enlisted personnel or their lives will be made a living hell.
All very true. I served on active duty from '72 to '93, and knew enlisted personnel who were not only sharper intellectually than some of the O's they saluted, but who had comparable or better educations. You really can't blame the average American civilian for buying into the stereotype of the enlisted man who moves his lips while he reads his comics; movies and television (and M.A.S.H. was one of the all-time worst offenders) have been perpetuating the thing since Christ was a corporal.
Anyway...I have a son who has been an enlisted tank mechanic, a Warrant Officer flying Blackhawks, and when he graduates med school next May will be commissioned as a Captain in the Army Medical Corps. Interesting career path. Same man doing all three jobs, wearing different insignia.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:54 PM
It isn't a contest. I made my point.
You made your point.
it was not accepted and that made you angry so you went personal as always.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 12:54 PM
I understand the dynamic between enlisted and officer. I was both.
The legal underpinnings of the oaths are as I described them. It doesn't matter if anyone realizes that or not.
Enlisted personnel do not owe allegiance to any person other than the troops they lead. They take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. They swear to obey the orders of officers appointed over them IF those orders are Constitutional and in compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Officers exist for one reason, well... maybe two.
First, they act as a control measure imposed by Congress on the people who actually run the military. That would be the NCO Corps.
The second purpose is to take the fall if the military fails in its assigned mission.
In reality, on the ground, officers are superfluous and more of a burden than anything else, particularly junior officers. When you get up into the upper echelons of military leadership and start dealing with Field Grade or General Officers, the role changes a bit and the officers become more involved in strategic planning, rather than tactical execution. I doubt very much that there is a senior officer out there, especially one who rose through the ranks in Combat Arms who will not tell you that his strongest asset and the reason he got to where he is, was a Sergeant Major or First Sergeant or Platoon Sergeant he had along the way who taught him HOW to be an effective officer.
One of the main jobs of an NCO is to protect junior officers from themselves. A major part of the rest of his job is to protect the troops from their officers.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 12:56 PM
Enlisted personnel do not owe allegiance to any person. They owe it to the Constitution. They swear to obey the orders of officers appointed over them IF those orders are Constitutional and in compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Officers exist for one reason, well... maybe two.
First, they act as a control measure imposed by Congress on the people who actually run the military. That would be the NCO Corps.
The second purpose is to take the fall if the military fails in its assigned mission.
In reality, on the ground, officers are superfluous and more of a burden than anything else, particularly junior officers. When you get up into the upper echelons of military leadership and start dealing with Field Grade or General Officers, the role changes a bit and the officers become more involved in strategic planning, rather than tactical execution. I doubt very much that there is a senior officer out there, especially one who rose through the ranks in Combat Arms who will not tell you that his strongest asset and the reason he got to where he is, was a Sergeant Major or First Sergeant or Platoon Sergeant he had along the way who taught him HOW to be an effective officer.
One of the main jobs of an NCO is to protect junior officers from themselves. A major part of the rest of his job is to protect the troops from their officers.
Practically you are 100% correct. Legally..., see my post above.
HoneyBadger
11-05-2015, 01:02 PM
Practically you are 100% correct. Legally..., see my post above.
The US Constitution is the highest law of the land. It's higher than the UCMJ, it's higher than an officer's orders. There is a reason why protecting and defending the Constitution from ALL enemies is placed first in an enlisted person's oath. If an enlisted person's first duty is to obey the officers appointed over them, there would have been no reason for them to swear an oath to protect the Constitution.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 01:03 PM
The US Constitution is the highest law of the land. It's higher than the UCMJ, it's higher than an officer's orders. There is a reason why protecting and defending the Constitution from ALL enemies is placed first in an enlisted person's oath. If an enlisted person's first duty is to obey the officers appointed over them, there would have been no reason for them to swear an oath to protect the Constitution.
Agree.
Now read the oath that enlisted soldiers take. Don't stop after the first sentence.
What is there to challenge?
It is fine for a roboton.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 03:10 PM
It is fine for a roboton.
It is necessary for a soldier.
Standing Wolf
11-05-2015, 03:17 PM
Now read the oath that enlisted soldiers take. Don't stop after the first sentence.
The enlisted oath mentions following orders, and the commissioned officer's oath mentions carrying out the duties of one's office - which of course includes following the orders of everyone in the chain of command above them. You seem to be in search of a distinction that has far more to do with semantics than legality. To what end I'm not entirely sure.
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 03:19 PM
The enlisted oath mentions following orders, and the commissioned officer's oath mentions carrying out the duties of one's office - which of course includes following the orders of everyone in the chain of command above them. You seem to be in search of a distinction that has far more to do with semantics than legality. To what end I'm not entirely sure.
I am not searching for a distinction. I am explaining the reasons for the difference in oaths of office for enlisted and officers. And I am basing my opinion off military case law. From courts-martial. And what the appellate courts said about the trial court rulings.
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cletus http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1316424#post1316424)
Enlisted personnel do not owe allegiance to any person. They owe it to the Constitution. They swear to obey the orders of officers appointed over them IF those orders are Constitutional and in compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Officers exist for one reason, well... maybe two.
First, they act as a control measure imposed by Congress on the people who actually run the military. That would be the NCO Corps.
The second purpose is to take the fall if the military fails in its assigned mission.
In reality, on the ground, officers are superfluous and more of a burden than anything else, particularly junior officers. When you get up into the upper echelons of military leadership and start dealing with Field Grade or General Officers, the role changes a bit and the officers become more involved in strategic planning, rather than tactical execution. I doubt very much that there is a senior officer out there, especially one who rose through the ranks in Combat Arms who will not tell you that his strongest asset and the reason he got to where he is, was a Sergeant Major or First Sergeant or Platoon Sergeant he had along the way who taught him HOW to be an effective officer.
One of the main jobs of an NCO is to protect junior officers from themselves. A major part of the rest of his job is to protect the troops from their officers.
Practically you are 100% correct. Legally..., see my post above.
The first sergeant that made me the company clerk of a hq/hq unit really ran things for the Captain. Make no mistake, he was in charge and was a fine Captain. His XO was a fuck up as an officer. He had the idea he could bully other officers of his rank and reign hell on those beneath him. He came from a rich family and his shit did not stink the way he saw it. He loved the Article 15 when the Captain put him in charge for some days. I saw the Col rip him a new butthole for actually misplacing the unit out of position. Not by feet, by miles.
It is necessary for a soldier.
indeed so.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 03:29 PM
Back on topic... On 10 May 1994, a Navy Lt Cmdr named Cunningham issued a survey to Jarheads at 29 Palms.
Question #46 of the survey was
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these fireamis to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to tum over their firearms. Consider the following statement:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government
(_____)
(____)
(_____)
(______)
(____)
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
A large number of the junior enlisted who took the survey answered "Agree". When the question was asked of Senior Enlisted and special Operations personnel, the unanimous response
"Strongly Disagree"
When the survey was leaked, it caused a huge uproar throughout the military and Cunningham immediately started backtracking and said the question was intended to highlight the lack of training in the Constitution and the UCMJ received by the rank and file. Whether it was or was not, I guess only Cunningham knows. The broader consensus among military personnel was that such an order would be illegal and would not be obeyed and the proper course of actin would be to immediately relieve the officer issuing the order of his command, as a minimum. Some suggested a much stronger response.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 03:33 PM
You can read the entire survey HERE (http://www.29palmssurvey.com/survey.html)
Standing Wolf
11-05-2015, 03:46 PM
I am not searching for a distinction. I am explaining the reasons for the difference in oaths of office for enlisted and officers. And I am basing my opinion off military case law. From courts-martial. And what the appellate courts said about the trial court rulings.
Forgive me for not relishing the thought of going back and re-reading this entire thread again in search of an answer, but - in a nutshell, what is your point, with regard to the oaths being different, as you believe that difference pertains to the subject of the OP and/or the poll?
Peter1469
11-05-2015, 04:50 PM
Forgive me for not relishing the thought of going back and re-reading this entire thread again in search of an answer, but - in a nutshell, what is your point, with regard to the oaths being different, as you believe that difference pertains to the subject of the OP and/or the poll?
The oath for enlisted personnel don't give them the ability to independently determine that our government needs to be overthrown. The oath for officers is not limited in that manner.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 05:21 PM
The oath for enlisted personnel don't give them the ability to independently determine that our government needs to be overthrown. The oath for officers is not limited in that manner.
You arrive at that conclusion... how?
Officer's oath: I will 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
Enlisted oath: I will 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
Ethereal
11-05-2015, 05:29 PM
I certainly can imagine a scenario where some domestic enemies of the Constitution were U.S. citizens.
Yea, they're called "politicians".
Ethereal
11-05-2015, 05:33 PM
Do you expect a private with a ged to decide in the heat of combat what 50 lawyers cannot agree on after the fact?
I expect that a private with or without a GED has more common sense in their little finger than every politician in Washington DC.
Ethereal
11-05-2015, 05:39 PM
Back on topic... On 10 May 1994, a Navy Lt Cmdr named Cunningham issued a survey to Jarheads at 29 Palms.
Question #46 of the survey was
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these fireamis to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to tum over their firearms. Consider the following statement:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government
(_____)
(____)
(_____)
(______)
(____)
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
No opinion
A large number of the junior enlisted who took the survey answered "Agree". When the question was asked of Senior Enlisted and special Operations personnel, the unanimous response
"Strongly Disagree"
When the survey was leaked, it caused a huge uproar throughout the military and Cunningham immediately started backtracking and said the question was intended to highlight the lack of training in the Constitution and the UCMJ received by the rank and file. Whether it was or was not, I guess only Cunningham knows. The broader consensus among military personnel was that such an order would be illegal and would not be obeyed and the proper course of actin would be to immediately relieve the officer issuing the order of his command, as a minimum. Some suggested a much stronger response.
I was just a Lance Corporal, but anyone senior of me, officer or enlisted, issuing such an order would regret it.
Standing Wolf
11-05-2015, 05:39 PM
The oath for enlisted personnel don't give them the ability to independently determine that our government needs to be overthrown. The oath for officers is not limited in that manner.
Um...right. So is it your understanding that a United States military officer, having sworn to support and defend the Constitution, is nevertheless legally empowered to "independently determine that our government needs to be overthrown"?
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 05:43 PM
I expect that a private with or without a GED has more common sense in their little finger than every politician in Washington DC.
Some do and some don't.
privates have been known to grow up and be politicians.
but woe unto any private who fails to follow orders, legal or otherwise.
Cletus
11-05-2015, 05:45 PM
I was just a Lance Corporal, but anyone senior of me, officer or enlisted, issuing such an order would regret it.
That is as it should be.
Good on you.
Standing Wolf
11-05-2015, 05:47 PM
I expect that a private with or without a GED has more common sense in their little finger than every politician in Washington DC.
In my time in the Service, I knew enlisted personnel with Master's degrees who were so fascinated by their jobs and proud of their ability to perform them that they turned down opportunities to apply for a commission. Although I had no college degree at all when I went through basic training, I was offered admission to an Officer's program while still there and turned it down. I also knew officers who majored in things like Phys Ed or Ceramics. Again, educational attainment is not always the best criteria by which to judge an individual's intellect or moral character.
birddog
11-05-2015, 08:36 PM
thank you... and I think you'll also agree that non-vets really cannot speak with any real knowledge about what military personnel are "bred" to do.
I agree.
exploitedMAD
11-05-2015, 08:38 PM
Um...right. So is it your understanding that a United States military officer, having sworn to support and defend the Constitution, is nevertheless legally empowered to "independently determine that our government needs to be overthrown"?
Hello Standing Wolf. Your post has been flagged as "subversive" by The Political Forum's automatons. Please refer to the rulebook - http://www.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111.com - for more information.
MisterVeritis
11-05-2015, 08:50 PM
Have any officers challenged the oath in court?
Why would we? It is a legitimate oath. Our greatest enemy today is this regime that has done significant damage to the Constitution. Restoring the Constitution by giving it new teeth to combat lawlessness by all three branches would restore my faith in the government.
MisterVeritis
11-05-2015, 08:51 PM
I certainly can imagine a scenario where some domestic enemies of the Constitution were U.S. citizens.
We agree. See the entire Democratic party leadership at the Federal level.
MisterVeritis
11-05-2015, 08:55 PM
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that commissioned officers are independent contractors who only have to obey orders from obumer they agree with.
You err, Mac. Commissioned Officers have a greater level of responsibility for refusing unlawful orders.
Enlisted, have less responsibility for determining if their orders are unlawful. They still bear responsibility. The officers will be hanged.
MisterVeritis
11-05-2015, 08:56 PM
but to answer your question: commissioned officers can always resign their commission if they feel they are being asked to do something illegal or immoral that goes against their conscience. Enlisted personnel have no such option.
That becomes very hard to do in the midst of a war.
Ethereal
11-05-2015, 08:57 PM
Some do and some don't.
privates have been known to grow up and be politicians.
but woe unto any private who fails to follow orders, legal or otherwise.
Privates are people just like anyone else, and they have an identity and a culture before they show up to the military. I was just a private once, but there is no way I would have accepted an order to disarm Americans, and neither would have dozens of my friends in the Marine Corps. Most guys who join the infantry are pro-gun anyway, so they would probably mob an officer if he ordered them to confiscate arms from Americans. That's based on my personal experience, at least.
Common
11-05-2015, 09:01 PM
Privates are people just like anyone else, and they have an identity and a culture before they show up to the military. I was just a private once, but there is no way I would have accepted an order to disarm Americans, and neither would have dozens of my friends in the Marine Corps. Most guys who join the infantry are pro-gun anyway, so they would probably mob an officer if he ordered them to confiscate arms from Americans. That's based on my personal experience, at least.
Americans dont enlist to fight and turn on other americans, thats what makes us better than other countries that use their military to suppress and murder their own.
Why would we? It is a legitimate oath. Our greatest enemy today is this regime that has done significant damage to the Constitution. Restoring the Constitution by giving it new teeth to combat lawlessness by all three branches would restore my faith in the government.
Do you feel well treated since you took the oath?
Ethereal
11-05-2015, 09:08 PM
That is as it should be.
Good on you.
I would have relieved them of their command, willingly or otherwise. We must uphold the law regardless of our rank.
MisterVeritis
11-05-2015, 09:08 PM
In my time in the Service, I knew enlisted personnel with Master's degrees who were so fascinated by their jobs and proud of their ability to perform them that they turned down opportunities to apply for a commission. Although I had no college degree at all when I went through basic training, I was offered admission to an Officer's program while still there and turned it down. I also knew officers who majored in things like Phys Ed or Ceramics. Again, educational attainment is not always the best criteria by which to judge an individual's intellect or moral character.
Ceramics as in engineering materials?
Most of the officers I knew had undergraduate degrees heavy in the sciences and math. In my 20 years, I never ran across any officers with degrees in physical education. I did know one officer with a degree in literature. I knew several with degrees in history. I took three or four honors history courses. They were the most interesting of all the classes in my four plus undergraduate years.
Ethereal
11-05-2015, 09:10 PM
In my time in the Service, I knew enlisted personnel with Master's degrees who were so fascinated by their jobs and proud of their ability to perform them that they turned down opportunities to apply for a commission. Although I had no college degree at all when I went through basic training, I was offered admission to an Officer's program while still there and turned it down. I also knew officers who majored in things like Phys Ed or Ceramics. Again, educational attainment is not always the best criteria by which to judge an individual's intellect or moral character.
The Navy wanted me for their nuclear submarine program, but I declined. I just wanted to be infantry or special operations. Of course, it was an epic mistake on my part, but there is plenty of good old fashioned common sense in the enlisted ranks.
MisterVeritis
11-05-2015, 09:13 PM
Do you feel well treated since you took the oath?
That is such an odd question.
I took my oath freely and with a significant amount of understanding. One of my honors history courses was on the military and militarism. Although it was not explicitly taught it was easy to see the differences between officer corps that swore allegiance to a man instead of to a form of government designed to ensure a republican form of government with the consent of the governed. Of course we no longer have that today.
That becomes very hard to do in the midst of a war.
Can officers resign their commissions at will? No need to wait for DOR?
MisterVeritis
11-05-2015, 09:17 PM
Can officers resign their commissions at will? No need to wait for DOR? Technically yes. There are disincentives. For example, many special schools require a two for one payback period. I never knew of anyone who resigned their commission other than those who were leaving the service after their required period of service was up.
That is such an odd question.
I took my oath freely and with a significant amount of understanding. One of my honors history courses was on the military and militarism. Although it was not explicitly taught it was easy to see the differences between officer corps that swore allegiance to a man instead of to a form of government designed to ensure a republican form of government with the consent of the governed. Of course we no longer have that today.
Why odd to wonder if it turned out well and along the way ... to seek your belief that you were treated well. I recall, to give you an instance of a pilot in the Army, who was in for close enough years to get his retirement. He, believe it or not, was still a Captain. He should have had a higher rank. To impress the Division Commanding General, MG Frank Mildren, hoping to obtain browning points, got a call at the airfield I and he worked at, asking about our weather. The Captain per regs had shut down the air field due to 0-0 weather. No visibility ... socked to the ground nearly.
I heard the Captain tell the General he would get into a chopper and fly from Scheiwinfurt to Wurzburg to pick him up to carry the General where he wanted to go. The General, being no fool turned him down. The General had his own Huey and pilot to begin with. Something was burning the captains ass as he was desperate to hang on. He did one MOS change to save his butt from being booted out. Some officers I served around seemed to me to be quality, some bull shit. (very few) The Captain I speak of must have been low quality and I saw up close why he was low quality.
Safety
11-05-2015, 09:30 PM
I'm not the third dog in Maineman's dog and pony show.
Its none of his business or anyone else's.
You are a liar.
Why are you getting so hostile? Either you served or you didn't. There is no shame in saying you didn't serve, just beating around the bush makes you look more silly......as if that was possible.
Technically yes. There are disincentives. For example, many special schools require a two for one payback period. I never knew of anyone who resigned their commission other than those who were leaving the service after their required period of service was up.
I walked away from a lot of retirement by not going to OCS. Dang it. The good is I also missed Vietnam.
Tahuyaman
11-05-2015, 09:56 PM
Ok, Maineman CLAIMS to be a vet.
Got it.
Don't not give him any attention. He's senile.
Tahuyaman
11-05-2015, 09:58 PM
i am a vet.... And proud of it. And, if you bet me enough money, i'll link you to a little youtube video i made a few years back on a bet with another chickenhawk.... Which shows me holding my retired military id card.
Now again... How do you claim to know what military personnel are "bred" to do?
lol....
I walked away from a lot of retirement by not going to OCS. Dang it. The good is I also missed Vietnam.
you would have been riffed as a butter bar or fragged in nam, bobby
no loss
you would have been riffed as a butter bar or fragged in nam, bobby
no loss
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
I had two training cycles training a platoon so the nice thing is both platoons gave me high marks.
birddog
11-05-2015, 10:24 PM
I walked away from a lot of retirement by not going to OCS. Dang it. The good is I also missed Vietnam.
Same here.
HoneyBadger
11-05-2015, 10:54 PM
The oath for enlisted personnel don't give them the ability to independently determine that our government needs to be overthrown. The oath for officers is not limited in that manner.
WTF?
Every single citizen has the ability by birthright.
I assure you that the enlisted oath was not written so that officers would be given control of mindless bodies to do their bidding. Should an officer decide to issue unconstitutional orders, particularly concerning the rights of citizens, I would expect the enlisted personnel to refuse those orders, given that they've sworn an oath to do exactly that.
maineman
11-05-2015, 11:06 PM
lol....
all hat and no cattle... why am I not surprised?
maineman
11-05-2015, 11:09 PM
Ok, Maineman CLAIMS to be a vet.
Got it.
so I guess the chance to earn some easy money by proving me to be a "non-vet" is something you're not interested in?
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 11:10 PM
Why are you getting so hostile? Either you served or you didn't. There is no shame in saying you didn't serve, just beating around the bush makes you look more silly......as if that was possible.
I declined to answer so peter put words on my mouth and answered for me.
I dont appreciate being lied about.
I declined to answer so peter put words on my mouth and answered for me.
I dont appreciate being lied about.
someone accused you of being sentient?
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 11:18 PM
so I guess the chance to earn some easy money by proving me to be a "non-vet" is something you're not interested in?
I cant prove anything about you on the internet.
If you tell us you are a woman, or man, black or white, gay or straight, military vet or not its all vapor.
Tell us you are the typical lib who is personally well off but wants to tax the rich just so government can give the money away to the needy - not you cause you're rich - who can prove you're not?
Its the internet where all lib dreams come true.
Most of the people claiming military service probably are telling the truth.
i dont say you aren't a vet.
only that you get no credit from me for unsupported claims
Tahuyaman
11-05-2015, 11:23 PM
all hat and no cattle... why am I not surprised?
lol..
Same here.
I was in Feb 62-Feb 64
and you?
maineman
11-05-2015, 11:28 PM
I cant prove anything about you on the internet.
If you tell us you are a woman, or man, black or white, gay or straight, military vet or not its all vapor.
Tell us you are the typical lib who is personally well off but wants to tax the rich just so government can give the money away to the needy - not you cause you're rich - who can prove you're not?
Its the internet where all lib dreams come true.
Most of the people claiming military service probably are telling the truth.
i dont say you aren't a vet.
only that you get no credit for unsupported claims from me
like I said...another chicken hawk prick like you challenged me four years ago. I talked him into a bet. He made the bet. I made the video. HE lost. He ran away too. I am not surprised.
Mac-7
11-05-2015, 11:32 PM
like I said...another chicken hawk $#@! like you challenged me four years ago. I talked him into a bet. He made the bet. I made the video. HE lost. He ran away too. I am not surprised.
Dont boor me with your tall tales.
if you say you are a retired general with more medals than Audie Murphy it means nothing to me because its just Internet vapor.
birddog
11-05-2015, 11:34 PM
I was in Feb 62-Feb 64
and you?
March 66--March 68.
maineman
11-05-2015, 11:35 PM
Dont boor me with your tall tales.
if you say you are a retired general with more medals than Audie Murphy it means nothing to me because its just Internet vapor.
:yawn:
Standing Wolf
11-05-2015, 11:41 PM
Um...right. So is it your understanding that a United States military officer, having sworn to support and defend the Constitution, is nevertheless legally empowered to "independently determine that our government needs to be overthrown"?
Another question, while you're (presumably) pondering the first one, Peter: where, in the U.S. Constitution, is there a provision that permits anyone to "overthrow" the government?
March 66--March 68.
Bad time to be in. At least we just had some special forces in Vietnam when I was there. Dennis, a friend was there driving ambulances around that time. Got ptsd, lost some of his intestines due to some bug he got there and he caught some agent orange spray too.
I caught hell for calling the army back pack a back pack and Dennis confirmed I am correct. Dennis knew the number of the pack. I told him about the ruck sack and Dennis says, somebody wants to be petty with you and laughed. Dennis is a good expert on military uniforms. At his house, his mannequin has a Nazi uniform on right now.
maineman
11-06-2015, 10:57 AM
I cant prove anything about you on the internet.
If you tell us you are a woman, or man, black or white, gay or straight, military vet or not its all vapor.
Tell us you are the typical lib who is personally well off but wants to tax the rich just so government can give the money away to the needy - not you cause you're rich - who can prove you're not?
Its the internet where all lib dreams come true.
Most of the people claiming military service probably are telling the truth.
i dont say you aren't a vet.
only that you get no credit from me for unsupported claims
like I said. I have a Youtube video... made a few years back for another internet chickenhawk who claimed that my political philosophy clearly precluded my ever having served in the Navy.... It's me sitting next to the pool at my home in Mexico.... identifying myself as "maineman".... holding a retired military ID card with my picture on it.... you can match the photo to the face of the guy holding the photo (me)....shows my rank as O-5. If you wanna bet me, I'll show it to you. If not, you could just accept my word on the subject.
Tahuyaman
11-06-2015, 10:59 AM
Lol
Mac-7
11-06-2015, 11:24 AM
like I said. I have a Youtube video... made a few years back for another internet chickenhawk who claimed that my political philosophy clearly precluded my ever having served in the Navy.... It's me sitting next to the pool at my home in Mexico.... identifying myself as "maineman".... holding a retired military ID card with my picture on it.... you can match the photo to the face of the guy holding the photo (me)....shows my rank as O-5. If you wanna bet me, I'll show it to you. If not, you could just accept my word on the subject.
Your home in MEXICO?
How appropriate.
Lineman
11-06-2015, 07:38 PM
Who's president in this example?
maineman
11-06-2015, 09:24 PM
Your home in MEXICO?
How appropriate.
no kidding. I and my wife are living a dream...because we can, and because we've always wanted to... and poor time clock punching suckers like you can only dream of how cool it would be to live in a palace tended to by gardeners and housekeepers and pool boys and get to fly all over the globe exploring while you're still punching the fucking clock working for the man. Must suck to be you.
Mac-7
11-06-2015, 09:28 PM
no kidding. I and my wife are living a dream...because we can, and because we've always wanted to... and poor time clock punching suckers like you can only dream of how cool it would be to live in a palace tended to by gardeners and housekeepers and pool boys and get to fly all over the globe exploring while you're still punching the $#@!ing clock working for the man. Must suck to be you.
Slumming in a third world cesspool is paridise for you?
Be my guest.
Peter1469
11-06-2015, 09:29 PM
Slumming in a third world cesspool is paridise for you?
Be my guest.
Many parts of Mexico are not third world cesspools. You should get out of your parent's basement more often.
maineman
11-06-2015, 09:30 PM
Slumming in a third world cesspool is paridise for you?
Be my guest.
you obviously have never been to the part of Mexico where I live.
maineman
11-06-2015, 09:31 PM
actually, my city is the safest city vis a vis violent crime of all the cities of more than a million people in all of North America.
Mac-7
11-06-2015, 09:36 PM
Many parts of Mexico are not third world cesspools.
True.
There are the gated communities with high walls to keep undesirables at bay.
Peter1469
11-06-2015, 09:39 PM
True.
There are the gated communities with high walls to keep undesirables at bay.
Nothing wrong with that.
Mac-7
11-06-2015, 09:40 PM
Nothing wrong with that.
The 1% do what they have to do.
maineman
11-06-2015, 09:41 PM
True.
There are the gated communities with high walls to keep undesirables at bay.I actually live in the heart of downtown.... in a 10m x 85m row house.... and there are no guards and no gates.... just us, and a big swimming pool, and a large garden and five huge palm trees, and total security.
maineman
11-06-2015, 09:43 PM
The 1% do what they have to do.
and I love it... and I scoff at douchebags like you who try and put me down while they punch the clock and work for the man.
Mac-7
11-06-2015, 09:52 PM
and I love it... and I scoff at douchebags like you who try and put me down while they punch the clock and work for the man.
Given your wacky political opinions I think a third rate country like Mexico is perfect for you.
maineman
11-06-2015, 09:57 PM
Given your wacky political opinions I think a third rate country like Mexico is perfect for you.
for the time being, it fits our lifestyle perfectly. We have an international airport in our town that allows us easy access to the rest of the world. We have a glorious home in a super safe city... we have tons of expat friends that we party with often....and we hope that jerks like you never figure out what a great deal it is to live in that part of Mexico that we live in so that you won't come down here and fuck it all up for the rest of us.
Kurmugeon
11-06-2015, 10:00 PM
Obama has issued unlawful orders to subordinates in a dozen different government agencies, some on multiple occasions.
To my knowledge, no one has yet refused to follow those unlawful orders. It disgusts me.
Obama should have been impeached and removed from office long, long ago.
-
Mac-7
11-07-2015, 06:36 AM
for the time being, it fits our lifestyle perfectly. We have an international airport in our town that allows us easy access to the rest of the world. We have a glorious home in a super safe city... we have tons of expat friends that we party with often....and we hope that jerks like you never figure out what a great deal it is to live in that part of Mexico that we live in so that you won't come down here and $#@! it all up for the rest of us.
I love America too much to leave it for a screwed place like Mexico.
Tahuyaman
11-07-2015, 05:07 PM
I love America too much to leave it for a screwed place like Mexico.
I spend about half the year in Mexico. I've never had a negative experience ever.
One doesn't need to hate or dislike one thing to enjoy something different.
maineman
11-07-2015, 08:55 PM
I love America too much to leave it for a screwed place like Mexico.
nothing screwed up about where i live. I live in THE safest town of over a million people in all of North America. Fabulous restaurants, world class symphony...thirty minutes t the beach... my guess is, your've never been here. Hell... I'm an hour's drive to Chichen Itza, one of the seven wonders of the world.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.