2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: Heavies on November 17, 2015, 06:17:20 PM
-
Seeing the orders about to be issued to bring in thousands of refugees, many who might be insurgents ready to strike, will we follow orders? are we compelled to abide them? what will be the consequences for disobeying?
https://youtu.be/1DS2wXSKF5k (https://youtu.be/1DS2wXSKF5k)
-
A little fuzzy on the specifics. Are you talking about as a soldier, some sort of government employee or as a private citizen in the court of public opinion?
If you are talking about the military then you are treading into an interesting issue of being a conscuiouenscious objector.
-
A little fuzzy on the specifics. Are you talking about as a soldier, some sort of government employee or as a private citizen in the court of public opinion?
If you are talking about the military then you are treading into an interesting issue of being a conscuiouenscious objector.
Looked at the vid and thought about all three.
-
As usual Mr. Whittle is on point.
Obutthead has been replacing the highest ranking officers with those that are compliant with his "vision". What we are being left with are careerist political types, more suited to cocktail parties than combat.
As citizens we have a duty to refuse to comply with those orders or laws which we know are, or will be, detrimental to our nation.
We also have a Constitutional mandate that allows us to replace a government that no longer serves us as it should.
-
Officers oath of offices do not have obey the orders of the officers above me. For a reason.
-
I think there are times where people in the military have the obligation and the right to disobey an order but it must be applied fairly. For example, we should apply it equally to people who disobey a commander we don't agree with as we would a person who disobeys a commander we do agree with. I have heard it argued that soldiers who refused to go fight in Iraq should have been jailed because they had volunteered to join the military and their job was to follow orders. So then what happens when the tables are turned and we think our elected leader is heading the wrong direction?
-
Officers oath of offices do not have obey the orders of the officers above me. For a reason.
That's because it is in the officers commission: to observe and follow orders and directives of the President and superior officers.
I think there are times where people in the military have the obligation and the right to disobey an order but it must be applied fairly. For example, we should apply it equally to people who disobey a commander we don't agree with as we would a person who disobeys a commander we do agree with. I have heard it argued that soldiers who refused to go fight in Iraq should have been jailed because they had volunteered to join the military and their job was to follow orders. So then what happens when the tables are turned and we think our elected leader is heading the wrong direction?
It might be the way you worded it, but following the lawful order of a superior is not optional, nor is it subject to personal opinion. Refusing orders before deployment can get one jailed and refusing in the combat zone can get you shot.
-
Colt808 what oath of office did you take? Not wanting to attack you but curious since the Navy officer oath does not have anything saying that. I have seen the guard does add that tho. There is a difference from the officer and enlisted oath of office. Which I took seriously since I saw both sides and the reasoning behind the officer oath of office. https://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/enlisted-vs-commissioned-military-oath-of-office/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office don't like the guard one. From the army themselves http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html. Now I don't remember my commissioning paperwork but I thought it had the same thing. If need be I will pull it out.
-
That's because it is in the officers commission: to observe and follow orders and directives of the President and superior officers.
It might be the way you worded it, but following the lawful order of a superior is not optional, nor is it subject to personal opinion. Refusing orders before deployment can get one jailed and refusing in the combat zone can get you shot.
So for someone who refused to go to war in Iraq on the justification that the war was never legally declared by congress, then are they just refusing an unlawful order? I am not trying to bring that up specifically but using it as an example where sometimes it can get a little fuzzy of what a lawful order is.
-
Ehren Watada ?
-
Colt808 what oath of office did you take? Not wanting to attack you but curious since the Navy officer oath does not have anything saying that. I have seen the guard does add that tho. There is a difference from the officer and enlisted oath of office. Which I took seriously since I saw both sides and the reasoning behind the officer oath of office. https://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/enlisted-vs-commissioned-military-oath-of-office/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office don't like the guard one. From the army themselves http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html. Now I don't remember my commissioning paperwork but I thought it had the same thing. If need be I will pull it out.
Nothing wrong with asking for clarification, so I don't take it as an attack. I have taken several oaths since 1987...enlistment/reenlistment, commissioning, foreign service and the LE oath of honor.
There is no enlisted oath of office, because enlisted personnel do not hold office...you should know that. But commissioned officers receive an official commission/appointment document that spells out the duty & responsibility that you pointed out as omitted "for a reason". There is nothing ominous about it not being in the "oath"...it ("the duties of the office") is understood by every officer upon taking the oath and is the same for every branch. If you're going to dig through paperwork...it's the wall hanger document signed by the President or SECDEF.
-
Ahhh found it. Just pulled it out from the storage closet and read it. Which to me isn't the oath of office and less credible since I don't see my signature on it but did see this on it. (http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/19/9a9f5b753e7a4ceecbd19845a69a4ab5.jpg) in accordance with the laws of the United States of America. The constitution is the law of the land to me.
Also, thank you for your service colt.
-
Ahhh found it. Just pulled it out from the storage closet and read it. Which to me isn't the oath of office and less credible since I don't see my signature on it but did see this on it. http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11/19/9a9f5b753e7a4ceecbd19845a69a4ab5.jpg in accordance with the laws of the United States of America. The constitution is the law of the land to me.
Also, thank you for your service colt.
Not sure what you mean with "less credible". I believe it is clear and that every officer who takes the commissioning oath understands the meaning of: "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter". So whether ones signature is on the commission or not is irrelevant, an officer swears the oath and accepts their "office of responsibility". But to your original point, the commissioning oath does not have the specific wording because it is understood. I'll restate that so it is clear on why it is so: (Most) Enlisted personnel swear the oath upon entering service/prior to any training. Officers take it after pre-commissioning training.
One should take pride in their service...that document does not belong in a storage closet. A military officers commission represents a long line of traditions and values dating back to the founding of this nation. Hang it up or roll it and keep it in your safe.
-
So for someone who refused to go to war in Iraq on the justification that the war was never legally declared by congress, then are they just refusing an unlawful order?
NO
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
I am not trying to bring that up specifically but using it as an example where sometimes it can get a little fuzzy of what a lawful order is.
Whether an order is lawful or unlawful can be "fuzzy". Civilian law, military law, international law, or Gods law? You're wondering which one applies. All? None?
Don't hurt your brain thinking about it. Any order that it not criminal is a lawful.
-
If a superior says, "Secure that village," you do not get to ask, "Why?"
If a superior says, "Kill all the civilians living in that village," you do get to say, "I refuse," report the criminal act and/or possibly face a Court Martial for disobeying an order.
If a superior says, "Deploy to Iraq," but you don't like the reason for the mission, you have every right to refuse ... but you must also be willing to accept the legal consequences.
The military is the sharp edge of diplomacy. When other diplomatic efforts fail, the military is deployed. The military does not get to choose which actions they will participate in based on their political beliefs.
So, the general rule is "Choose wisely which issues you are willing to fall on your sword over." Failure to obey an order in the military can result in massive loss of American and allied lives. Often, it's better to follow the order, then report any truly illegal orders to your chain of command.
Being told to deploy to another county for any reason is not "refusing to follow an illegal order." You are not at the level necessary to judge whether or not the decision to deploy forces on foreign soil is legal.
-
If a superior says, "Secure that village," you do not get to ask, "Why?"
If a superior says, "Kill all the civilians living in that village," you do get to say, "I refuse," report the criminal act and/or possibly face a Court Martial for disobeying an order.
If a superior says, "Deploy to Iraq," but you don't like the reason for the mission, you have every right to refuse ... but you must also be willing to accept the legal consequences.
The military is the sharp edge of diplomacy. When other diplomatic efforts fail, the military is deployed. The military does not get to choose which actions they will participate in based on their political beliefs.
So, the general rule is "Choose wisely which issues you are willing to fall on your sword over." Failure to obey an order in the military can result in massive loss of American and allied lives. Often, it's better to follow the order, then report any truly illegal orders to your chain of command.
Being told to deploy to another county for any reason is not "refusing to follow an illegal order." You are not at the level necessary to judge whether or not the decision to deploy forces on foreign soil is legal.
And so if a president orders the US military to go to war without a proper declaration of war, is that refusing an illegal order?
What I am really getting at is that whileI absolutely understand the need for soldiers to follow orders I am weary of a blind adherence to this doctrine of it could be detrimental in cases where authority is abused.
While kind of a separate topic I saw a good but heavy documentary called Kill Team recently which covered events surrounding US soldiers purposefully killing innocents. Though it was a clear case of illegal activity, it did confront the difficult situation on doing the right, legal thing in a combat environment. It is kind of depressing in a way but it was a well made documentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywand_District_murders
-
And so if a president orders the US military to go to war without a proper declaration of war, is that refusing an illegal order?
What I am really getting at is that whileI absolutely understand the need for soldiers to follow orders I am weary of a blind adherence to this doctrine of it could be detrimental in cases where authority is abused.
While kind of a separate topic I saw a good but heavy documentary called Kill Team recently which covered events surrounding US soldiers purposefully killing innocents. Though it was a clear case of illegal activity, it did confront the difficult situation on doing the right, legal thing in a combat environment. It is kind of depressing in a way but it was a well made documentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywand_District_murders
According to the United Nations Charter, all acts of aggression initiated against another state are illegal. When a state (nation) attacks another, then the UN has the option/duty to use force. If a member nation is attacked, the UN considers all member nations allies in the response.
Responses are varied and do not always involve force. However, force against an aggressor is legal.
When force is needed, the UN does not "declare war".
So, by technical definition, no one in the UN can ever officially declare war. Therefore, your premise that only a declared war is legal is incorrect.
-
According to the United Nations Charter, all acts of aggression initiated against another state are illegal. When a state (nation) attacks another, then the UN has the option/duty to use force. If a member nation is attacked, the UN considers all member nations allies in the response.
Responses are varied and do not always involve force. However, force against an aggressor is legal.
When force is needed, the UN does not "declare war".
So, by technical definition, no one in the UN can ever officially declare war. Therefore, your premise that only a declared war is legal is incorrect.
?
I am talking about the American constitution, not the UN regulations. The US military and the US president don't answer to the UN.
You sidestepped the question. The constitution specifically sets out the powers and the limitations of powers of the US government. It specifically says that congress has the power to declare war. What good is a constitution if we ignore it?
-
?
I am talking about the American constitution, not the UN regulations. The US military and the US president don't answer to the UN.
You sidestepped the question. The constitution specifically sets out the powers and the limitations of powers of the US government. It specifically says that congress has the power to declare war. What good is a constitution if we ignore it?
How does any of that relate to following orders? I must have missed the part that said the military is only required to follow orders if Congress declares war.
-
What about following orders as exampled by the video, orders which goes against the constitution and American values? What about civilian LEO, search and seizures of property without due process? What if civilians forced to care and house people that may or may not be enemies of the state?
No doubt there would be repercussions for not following.
-
Ehren Watada ?
-
?
I am talking about the American constitution, not the UN regulations. The US military and the US president don't answer to the UN.
You sidestepped the question. The constitution specifically sets out the powers and the limitations of powers of the US government. It specifically says that congress has the power to declare war. What good is a constitution if we ignore it?
I think MD was pretty clear in his explanation, so I'm stumped as to what you want to know here? Yes, Article One Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. How does that change that the President is Commander in Chief and under 50 USC §1541 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/pdf/USCODE-2011-title50-chap33-sec1541.pdf), may "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities"? The Constitution is not being ignored.
-
What about following orders as exampled by the video, orders which goes against the constitution and American values? What about civilian LEO, search and seizures of property without due process? What if civilians forced to care and house people that may or may not be enemies of the state?
No doubt there would be repercussions for not following.
I watched the video again trying to find what orders go against the Constitution and found none. To be honest the entire thing is misleading and shows an extreme bias. No matter how Mr. Whittle wants to spin it, the President has little to do with any of the things mentioned. All regulation changes regarding uniforms, jewelry, body art, etc. come from the Secretary, Chief of Staff, or the senior enlisted advisor for each branch. And these regulations and policies were not created to hinder anyone from doing their jobs, but to maintain the professional appearance of our troops.
As for the other "orders", anything not covered by official regulation would be at a commanders’ discretion. Military life, military rules.
-
I watched the video again trying to find what orders go against the Constitution and found none. To be honest the entire thing is misleading and shows an extreme bias. No matter how Mr. Whittle wants to spin it, the President has little to do with any of the things mentioned. All regulation changes regarding uniforms, jewelry, body art, etc. come from the Secretary, Chief of Staff, or the senior enlisted advisor for each branch. And these regulations and policies were not created to hinder anyone from doing their jobs, but to maintain the professional appearance of our troops.
As for the other "orders", anything not covered by official regulation would be at a commanders’ discretion. Military life, military rules.
I thought it treading very close at least. New military is a bit far from the old military were regulation changes regarding uniforms, jewelry, body art, etc. maintain the professional appearance of our troops.
-
That was the initial commission. Promotions was a single piece of paper which nullifies the previous rank. If you have that other promotion paperwork post it up. If you will blindly follow that's you brother not me.
-
That was the initial commission. Promotions was a single piece of paper which nullifies the previous rank. If you have that other promotion paperwork post it up. If you will blindly follow that's you brother not me.
Please! The Oath of Enlistment and/or Office is NOT supposed to encapsulate the "if - then - else" decision process contained in the UCMJ. It's an oath that you make to uphold the responsibilities of your position.
The UCMJ and Code of Conduct are there to guide you in your day-to-day decisions. The difference between a legal order, and illegal order, and the appropriate actions to take are complicated and will never be covered in any oath.
If you want to try and say "I never swore an oath to do <fill in the blank>", remember the oath is very general. The "fine print" of what you promised is contained in the other documents. Part of the commissioning programs is to teach candidates what is in those documents BEFORE they raise their right hand.
-
I thought it treading very close at least. New military is a bit far from the old military were regulation changes regarding uniforms, jewelry, body art, etc. maintain the professional appearance of our troops.
I can see how it might seem that way and I don't necessarily agree or disagree with every regulation, policy, and directive. But then again, my personal feelings and opinions on such matters are irrelevant to my chosen occupation. Knowing how people tend to infer things unsaid, that means if it is legal and within their scope of command authority, I follow orders. As for new/old military with regard to what is being discussed? I maintain that it's not the service that has changed, but the quality and character (many) of those who serve. Things that used to be "understood" are now being put in writing because of the "what and why" aka "smartass" (civilian) mentality of the millennial.
I'll give a simple example: Professional appearance policies have been part of regulations since before my first day of service. It was understood and every definition did not have to be spelled out. Now Private Snuffy joins up post 9/11 and decides: "Hey it only applies to earrings!" So he pierces his brows, has 1/2" discs installed in his lobes and shows up for formation with a shit eating grin because he's getting one over on "the man". When called out on it, his smartass argues, regulations only apply to ears, not brow and these things in my ears are called gauges not rings. The sergeant knows the regs, but is perplexed on splitting hairs over words. So it goes up the chain for a decision. Now is it the Army's fault amending 670-1 or Private Snuffys for needing to have it spelled out?
What does that have to do with being a "fighting man"? Discipline and ability to follow orders.
-
That was the initial commission. Promotions was a single piece of paper which nullifies the previous rank. If you have that other promotion paperwork post it up. If you will blindly follow that's you brother not me.
Where are you going with this? Your initial statement was it's not part of the Oath "for a reason". I directed you to why and you have your Commission that explains exactly that. As for promotion paperwork it's likely the same, but I have 4 Commissions (initial, recall, FSO, and return to service). Three of them are identical Department of the Army with the only changes being the rank and signing authority. The Foreign Service is slightly different in that its worded as civilian authority. If it'd make you feel better and want an "updated" one with your most recent rank contact the NPRC and request it. Aside from that please clarify whether you think being promoted nullifies ones responsibilities and duties as an officer? Because I do NOT have anything that says or implies that.
Also if you think I've ever "blindly" done anything, kindly remove your head from ass and retract that statement. I've not mentioned nor suggests anything other that following lawful orders. I can only guess you took offense to suggesting that one should take pride and frame the document?
-
I think MD was pretty clear in his explanation, so I'm stumped as to what you want to know here? Yes, Article One Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. How does that change that the President is Commander in Chief and under 50 USC §1541 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/pdf/USCODE-2011-title50-chap33-sec1541.pdf), may "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities"? The Constitution is not being ignored.
"According to the War Powers Resolution, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending military forces into action. Armed forces can stay engaged for no more than 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period unless there is a formal Congressional authorization of military force or a declaration of war."
http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress.html
Another page explained that the founding fathers wanted authority to declare war rests with congress so that a single person is not in charge however the president is given control to lead the military so there is unity of command.
So is it a lawful order for the president to conduct war beyond the 60 days?
Lets go out on a limb with an extreme example to illustrate the problem with just relying on the section you quoted above.
The president decides he doesn't like maple syrup so he orders our soldiers to bomb Canada's maple syrup factories. Are you going to tell me that order is legal and refusal to do so would not be justified because the president may introduce armed forces into hostilities?
I don't think an abuse of power needs to be followed even if it is technically a legal order.
-
"According to the War Powers Resolution, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending military forces into action. Armed forces can stay engaged for no more than 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period unless there is a formal Congressional authorization of military force or a declaration of war."
http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress.html
Another page explained that the founding fathers wanted authority to declare war rests with congress so that a single person is not in charge however the president is given control to lead the military so there is unity of command.
So is it a lawful order for the president to conduct war beyond the 60 days?
Lets go out on a limb with an extreme example to illustrate the problem with just relying on the section you quoted above.
The president decides he doesn't like maple syrup so he orders our soldiers to bomb Canada's maple syrup factories. Are you going to tell me that order is legal and refusal to do so would not be justified because the president may introduce armed forces into hostilities?
I don't think an abuse of power needs to be followed even if it is technically a legal order.
Again, you have the choice to use discretion on the legality of the orders you are given. That means it is on your head to PROVE the orders were illegal when you are brought up on charges.
You have free will. No one is coercing you to do anything you feel is wrong. However, if you know your decision has potentially negative consequences, you must also be willing to accept those consequences.
Debating the legality of a Presidential decision is irrelevant. The President does not give ground or support troops direct orders. You will have to deal with your chain of command. Of course, if you had served, that would be obvious.
-
I'll comment more when I watch the video. Else-wise I really don't care.
-
Please! The Oath of Enlistment and/or Office is NOT supposed to encapsulate the "if - then - else" decision process contained in the UCMJ. It's an oath that you make to uphold the responsibilities of your position.
The UCMJ and Code of Conduct are there to guide you in your day-to-day decisions. The difference between a legal order, and illegal order, and the appropriate actions to take are complicated and will never be covered in any oath.
If you want to try and say "I never swore an oath to do <fill in the blank>", remember the oath is very general. The "fine print" of what you promised is contained in the other documents. Part of the commissioning programs is to teach candidates what is in those documents BEFORE they raise their right hand.
The oath is different from the commissioning document.
-
The oath is different from the commissioning document.
And how does that difference change what I said?
-
I'm guessing I received my commission longer ago than most all the other forum participants who share the privilege and responsibility of having one. In my commissioning training, the officers instructing us emphasized that it was not only OK to disobey an unlawful order, but that we had an affirmative duty to do so. They also made it very clear that none of us were constitutional lawyers, and just because we didn't like an order didn't make it unlawful... That duty was not to be undertaken lightly, and as MD has said, only after considering the potential consequences if we were mistaken.
The quibbling over whether or not it matters that the oath of office doesn't specify obeying the lawful orders of superiors when the commission does is silly. The oath and the commission go hand in hand; you can't look at one without the other. The oath is your promise to accomplish your duties as specified in your commission.
-
The oath is different from the commissioning document.
You do realize a commissioning document is a formal declaration which the President and component commander sign, awarding the candidate a commission? The candidate does not sign the Commissioning document. They sign a commissioning agreement (contract) after the oath is administered.
-
"According to the War Powers Resolution, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending military forces into action. Armed forces can stay engaged for no more than 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period unless there is a formal Congressional authorization of military force or a declaration of war."
http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress.html
Another page explained that the founding fathers wanted authority to declare war rests with congress so that a single person is not in charge however the president is given control to lead the military so there is unity of command.
So is it a lawful order for the president to conduct war beyond the 60 days?
It's become clear to me that you're not going to be satisfied with any answer given and will only seek to draw out a topic. Why does a thread always have to be: Question-->Answer-->Google some facts-->Ask another question-->Repeat? It's an endless cycle. I believe the question has been answered by more than one person. Could it be a generational thing where everything has to be answered to your satisfaction and nothing is valid unless on Wikipedia, Youtube or some web search? Do you realize that you're arguing source information from the opinion of someone who writes LGBT comics against published law from the GPO?
"Another page"? When it comes to the Founding Fathers, I don't reply on online interpretations that are spoon feed to the masses. Go to the source. Get an unabridged copy of the Federalist Papers and read their journals/diaries (http://founders.archives.gov/). This "Holiday Inn Express Mentality" is at the root of so many problems in the world...True knowledge requires some effort.
Getting back on topic...I do not understand how any rational adult could have difficulty comprehending the answer to a very simple question about following orders. Granted, you're clearly a civilian and uninitiated to the idea of military indoctrination, so you have the luxury of dreaming up hypotheticals for what orders someone should or should not obey. Narrow your focus and set aside politics, it plays no part in whether the military follows orders.
Lets go out on a limb with an extreme example to illustrate the problem with just relying on the section you quoted above.
The president decides he doesn't like maple syrup so he orders our soldiers to bomb Canada's maple syrup factories. Are you going to tell me that order is legal and refusal to do so would not be justified because the president may introduce armed forces into hostilities?
I don't think an abuse of power needs to be followed even if it is technically a legal order.
I'll try one more time and you can either accept it for what it is or not: A soldier is trained to follow orders, not question them. We do this not because we're mindless robots, but because we trust in our chain of command and that our orders are right and just. I have served at the pleasure of the President from Rio Hato to the Helmand Valley. So my answer to a maple syrup war? Yes Sir! Expect a Canadian maple syrup shortage (and I will do my best to make it happen within 60 days to keep it "legal").
Before this spins off into a "war on the flying zombie monkey" legal or not/follow or not scenario and the why this or that...learn the 3 words:
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY
those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.
-------
The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.
But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the nation's defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid.
They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness; the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.
~General Douglas MacArthur, 1962
The entire speech was played at my Commissioning ceremony. It had meaning in 1962, on the day I accepted, and still has meaning today.
-
I'm guessing I received my commission longer ago than most all the other forum participants who share the privilege and responsibility of having one. In my commissioning training, the officers instructing us emphasized that it was not only OK to disobey an unlawful order, but that we had an affirmative duty to do so. They also made it very clear that none of us were constitutional lawyers, and just because we didn't like an order didn't make it unlawful... That duty was not to be undertaken lightly, and as MD has said, only after considering the potential consequences if we were mistaken.
The quibbling over whether or not it matters that the oath of office doesn't specify obeying the lawful orders of superiors when the commission does is silly. The oath and the commission go hand in hand; you can't look at one without the other. The oath is your promise to accomplish your duties as specified in your commission.
Mmmm....I think we're part of the "liberal application of boot to ass" generation of service.
-
Sorry this thread is going off topic. the vid does not really ask to follow any specific illegal order. My point was to ascertain where is the line drawn? I am most positively sure they will not order military or LEO to confiscate the public arms if it were an illegal order.
Where it to be made a "legal" order, is that an order that would be followed? Or would you draw that line?