tl;dr? 2012/4/6 LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com>
> ----------- > > 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:349597 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
