Vets: Would you have fought citizens of the US?

[juskom95]

Originally Posted by Firebird

How does your statement address the OP?



Continuing ...



Just like some civilians, what?

Not an insult to civilians. Some people would rather follow, be lead than think for themselves. There are those kinds in the military as well.

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by juskom95

Not an insult to civilians. Some people would rather follow, be lead than think for themselves. There are those kinds in the military as well.

How does this bear on the question posed by the OP?

There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?

Also, answer the OP's question, if you don't mind.

Why have you left out a significant part of the Oath of Enlistment in your profile?

I do solemnly swear 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;

Are you a so-called Oath Keeper?

[ChapNelson]

I've taken the enlisted oath many times, and administered it frequently. Presently I am under the officer's oath, which reads as follows:

I, [name], 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 reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Please notice the consistency in both oaths - support and defend the Constitution. Not the government, not the political structure, not a particular party that happens to be in power. Not any other documents that follow, to include SCOTUS interpretations. Just simply the Constitution.

However, you may have noticed that obedience to the orders of the President, or anyone else, are not in this oath. The burden of the text, upon an officer, is to remain fit, of clear commitment, to the execution of the defense of the Constitution. Any officer who fails to rise to the occasion in defense of the Constitution, against all enemies, is subject to all manner of discipline to include death, for abandoning his post in the face of the enemy. And it is because of the difference in this oath, that I must take charge to make sure my enlisted folk are not placed in the dilemma of contravening their oath in the face of unconstitutional orders.

I do not understand why this is unclear; it was certainly very clear to those who wrote and ratified this oath.

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by ChapNelson

I've taken the enlisted oath many times, and administered it frequently. Presently I am under the officer's oath, which reads as follows:



Please notice the consistency in both oaths - support and defend the Constitution. Not the government, not the political structure, not a particular party that happens to be in power. Not any other documents that follow, to include SCOTUS interpretations. Just simply the Constitution.

However, you may have noticed that obedience to the orders of the President, or anyone else, are not in this oath. The burden of the text, upon an officer, is to remain fit, of clear commitment, to the execution of the defense of the Constitution. Any officer who fails to rise to the occasion in defense of the Constitution, against all enemies, is subject to all manner of discipline to include death, for abandoning his post in the face of the enemy. And it is because of the difference in this oath, that I must take charge to make sure my enlisted folk are not placed in the dilemma of contravening their oath in the face of unconstitutional orders.

I do not understand why this is unclear; it was certainly very clear to those who wrote and ratified this oath.

From whom do the officers receive their commissions and warrants?

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by ChapNelson

I've taken the enlisted oath many times, and administered it frequently. Presently I am under the officer's oath, which reads as follows:



Please notice the consistency in both oaths - support and defend the Constitution. Not the government, not the political structure, not a particular party that happens to be in power. Not any other documents that follow, to include SCOTUS interpretations. Just simply the Constitution.

However, you may have noticed that obedience to the orders of the President, or anyone else, are not in this oath. The burden of the text, upon an officer, is to remain fit, of clear commitment, to the execution of the defense of the Constitution. Any officer who fails to rise to the occasion in defense of the Constitution, against all enemies, is subject to all manner of discipline to include death, for abandoning his post in the face of the enemy. And it is because of the difference in this oath, that I must take charge to make sure my enlisted folk are not placed in the dilemma of contravening their oath in the face of unconstitutional orders.

I do not understand why this is unclear; it was certainly very clear to those who wrote and ratified this oath.

Also, what is your response to the OP?

There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?

[Just Jeff]

Good God...I wondered where the Topic Police ran off to...apparently a self-appointed moderator in this thread, with an axe to grind.

Quit being a **** and you'll likely get more constructive responses.

I'm with Chap on not understanding what's confusing about this. My oath is to no President or government...it's to the Constitution, in the spirit of protecting rights for "We the People.". Those are the citizens, in case that's not clear enough.

Honestly, the only place I've seen this become an issue is with the non-military people on this board. And if you ARE military (or former mil), then you should have taken care to understand the oath before you swore it.

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by Just Jeff

Good God...I wondered where the Topic Police ran off to...apparently a self-appointed moderator in this thread, with an axe to grind.

It seems I've touched a nerve.

Originally Posted by Just Jeff

Quit being a **** and you'll likely get more constructive responses.

Piss off.

Originally Posted by Just Jeff

I'm with Chap on not understanding what's confusing about this. My oath is to no President or government...it's to the Constitution, in the spirit of protecting rights for "We the People."

You apparently can't read:

I, (name)
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, 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.
So Help Me God

Continuing ...

Originally Posted by Just Jeff

Honestly, the only place I've seen this become an issue is with the non-military people on this board. And if you ARE military (or former mil), then you should have taken care to understand the oath before you swore it.

Why don't you address the OP? I have:

http://www.survivalistboards.com/sho...1&postcount=51

[Cryptkeeper]

Originally Posted by Peter Simcox

There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?

many ppl dont realize /think if your in the military they control the flow of information you will be recieveing and will Lie to you to get you to do what needs to be done. Odds are back then 90% of the military would have follow orders because they would be lied to about why they are doing what they are doing. However now days ALOT more ppl in the military are awake and are keeping a close eye on whats going on.Information flows alot faster and easier than it did and its alot harder for the chain of command to hide the truth. I know ALOT of the ppl in the military have already been talking about "what if" and many have already made up their minds what they will do if given such orders.

This is a question no1 really knows the answer to not even the ppl who may refuse to obey those orders.

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by Firebird

From whom do the officers receive their commissions and warrants?

Just so there's no doubt on this point, I'll answer my own question:

Commissioned officers:

(1) Original appointments in the grades of second lieutenant, first lieutenant, and captain in the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, and Regular Marine Corps and in the grades of ensign, lieutenant (junior grade), and lieutenant in the Regular Navy shall be made by the President alone.

(2) Original appointments in the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel in the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, and Regular Marine Corps and in the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain in the Regular Navy shall be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

[10 USC § 531 (a)]

Warrant officers:

Appointments in the grade of regular warrant officer, W–1, shall be made by warrant, except that with respect to an armed force under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary concerned may provide by regulation that appointments in that grade in that armed force shall be made by commission.

Appointments in regular chief warrant officer grades shall be made by commission by the President, and appointments (whether by warrant or commission) in the grade of regular warrant officer, W–1, shall be made by the President, except that appointments in that grade in the Coast Guard shall be made by the Secretary concerned.

[10 USC § 571 (b)]

[Tenfeathers]

Originally Posted by JDH

Two words, Kent State.

Most people now days don't have a clue about Kent State

[9111315]

Barbie State?

[Oathkeeper123]

Originally Posted by Peter Simcox

There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?

I just don't see regular troops doing this. Maybe special op's to a point or homeland security. They certainly wouldn't do it at the local level as that would never fly.

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by Oathkeeper123

I just don't see regular troops doing this. [ ... ]

I'm sure there's a stockade or two for those who won't play ball.

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

[10 USC § 333]

[JDH]

Originally Posted by Tenfeathers

Most people now days don't have a clue about Kent State

I know. I would hope they were curious enough to google it. Yes, sometimes I have delusions that people still do care about the past and not just what time Idol or Jersey Shore comes on next.

[ChapNelson]

Originally Posted by Firebird

From whom do the officers receive their commissions and warrants?

Commissioned Officers (O-1 through O-10 second lieutenant or ensign through general or admiral, and W-2 through W-5 (chief warrant officers)) are commissioned under the authority of the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, Warrant Officers (WO-1) are given a warrant under the authority of their respective Service Secretary (e.g. Secretary of the Army), National Guard officers are additionally committed to the authority of the governor of their state.

Once commissioned, officers may only have their commission revoked by the President, as a result of UCMJ proceedings.

The oath, however, much like that taken by each of the SCOTUS members who are also appointed by the President under the advice and consent of the Senate, places the officer under the authority of the Constitution directly along with the President and all other "officers" of the government. That is why the enlisted oath places them under the orders of officers. Constitution, Article 2.

[ChapNelson]

Originally Posted by Firebird

Just so there's no doubt on this point, I'll answer my own question:

Commissioned officers:



Warrant officers:

Your point then? Same process as all Officers of the government. Are you saying that SCOTUS answers to the President, and must obey his orders even when they contravene the Constitution to which they've taken an oath?

[cwbys4evr]

I'm pretty sure it's against the law for troops to fire upon U.S. citizens. If so, then whoever is giving the order is giving an unlawful order, which is not to be obeyed. You decide ahead of time that you are never going to let any officer or official order you to do something illegal. Those kinds of orders are invalid.

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by ChapNelson

Your point then? [ ... ]

Keeping in mind the question posed by the OP ...

There's a lot if debate and concern about what would happen if the Commander-in-Chief were to order troops into battle against US insurgents. When you served, would you feel bound by duty to obey such an order?

... my point is that military personnel, enlisted and officer, all of whom are under the authority of the President of the United States (to include the current one) could well find themselves engaging fellow U.S. citizens:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy [ ... ]

[10 USC § 333]

[Firebird]

Originally Posted by cwbys4evr

I'm pretty sure it's against the law for troops to fire upon U.S. citizens. If so, then whoever is giving the order is giving an unlawful order, which is not to be obeyed. You decide ahead of time that you are never going to let any officer or official order you to do something illegal. Those kinds of orders are invalid.

How sure are you that it's against the law for troops to fire upon U.S. citizens?

[zatoichi]

I think I could shoot another American but I am very glad I never was ordered to do that.