----------- Oath of Enlistment I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Title 10 USC Art. 90 of UCMJ Any person subject to this chapter who-- (1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or 2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct. Under current law, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, "*An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.*" ------------- I am not using the words lawful order in a lose manner, I am using those words in the manner in which I was taught in the U.S. Army at Ft. Benning Ga, where I did One Station Unit Training at the School of Infantry. We were taught that there is no defense to be had by uttering "I was just following orders". We were taught that officers are not omnipotent, that 99% of the time you must follow orders, but that when the situation arises you must be prepared to disobey an illegal order. I love the way you throw Haditha in there, those men either had their charges dropped, or where found not guilty, with one charge of I think assault and negligent homicide, not the organized massacre that the media and the movie portrayed. Innocent until proven guilty huh? Eric did the same thing recently. Not following the ILLEGAL orders of the civilian government isn't something I would do lightly, but something I would do if the situation required it. My oath lists the constitution of the United States before the orders of the President or the officers, and it does so intentionally. I know you dislike our form of government Larry, you have the best of intentions and are a good guy, I have known you for what 11 years now? I know you dislike the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, that you think a more liberal "interpretation" is the one that should be followed, and you know that I (and many many others) thankfully disagree. Not following ILLEGAL orders is not the actions of the Junta, no, the military dictatorship requires you follow all orders, no matter their legality, in order to maintain military control. Rather, in disobeying an order you find to be illegal you are taking the actions of a free man, and doing so in the most difficult way, with your life and freedom on the line. This is the oath keepers list of orders they will not obey: Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following: 1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. 2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. 3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor. 5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control." 9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. The justification for these can be found here: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html They were written by a military and civilian lawyer, I'd say he knows more about the law than either of us. The government of the United States cannot continue to ignore the rights of the individual. They are doing so more and more rapidly and in the open, and it is becoming a problem. Should we continue down this path there will be violence, it's that simply. Legislation and Presidential edict cannot over rule the highest law in the land, that of the constitution, and all citizens of this great land are to be responsible for putting things right again. Obama just told Jim Brady that he is attempting to limit gun rights through presidential edict (executive order). http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-on-gun-control-under-the-radar/ That is a crime. It goes directly against the constitution of the United States, Heller has affirmed that gun ownership, of weapons even of a military type, is an individual right. I'll be honest in the aftermath of Katrina, and our recent interventionist wars (which as you know I took part in, and even supported in my ignorance) I no longer support the idea of a standing army at all, as it does become the enemy of freedom. I have my ideas of what I would like to see instead, but that my friend is for another thread. BTW, I am actually still under UCMJ because of my status. I know I can be charged should I do something against what I see to be an expanding and corrupt central government, yet to stand by and do nothing while we slip into tyranny would be to go against everything I beieve, and have been taught, about what it means to be a citizen of this country. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin ÌÏËÙÍ ËÁÂÅ IN ORBE TERRUM NON VISI SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote: > > It depends. There are very strict conditions where the military can be > used in the US, including maintaining civil order, suppressing > rebellion, natural disasters etc. But you are using the phrase illegal > order in a very loose way. Illegal order if I remember correctly > refers to an order from a superior that violates the USMJ and other > government laws or the rules of warfare - ie shooting up civilians as > in Haditha. > > The military serves the civilian government. Nothing else. It is the > civilian government that decides in the end. What you are saying is > that the military should be the judge of what they will obey. That is > not miltary disciple that is the thinking of a military junta. > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hmmm, you must have missed the part where I said an illegal order. > > > > It would be illegal to order soldiers to violate the constitutional > rights > > of citizens. > > > > I feel it should be illegal to use the military domestically for anything > > other than an invasion from an outside source. > > > > Posse comitatus covered that once upon a time, but with all this new > > legislation who knows. > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> > >> Then they are violating the UMCJ and should be dealt with. Refusing to > >> obey a legal order strikes at the heart of military discipline. If > >> they do not want to follow orders then those bozos should not be in > >> the military. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > It'll split. > >> > > >> > I've known guys in the Army who actually believed that their should > be a > >> > military junta, and I've known oathkeeprs and others that wouldn't > follow > >> > an illegal order. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> I have often wondered...when people have finally had enough and start > >> >> resisting, and the military eventually gets involved, who will the > >> >> military side with? The government? The people? Whichever side > lets > >> >> them have their jollies? > >> >> > >> >> I hope I never find out, but some generation is probably going to in > the > >> >> not so distant future. > >> >> > >> >> On 4/5/2012 1:09 PM, Eric Roberts wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2TmSmbUQI > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:349596 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
