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?
 

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. 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.