Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,541 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 879,687
Pageviews Today: 1,752,320Threads Today: 660Posts Today: 15,301
10:51 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 63063761
United States
07/11/2015 06:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment


The 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.

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences”

Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).
Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you’re given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.

“I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799.

During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

HAT-TIP to About.com

The NCOs in our military are the ones who suffer the most from orders that are questionable at best. They are responsible for directing the junior enlisted servicemen, who are most susceptible to following illegal orders. Pray for our small unit leaders and give them the courage they need to follow all lawful orders.

~Justin
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 69302391
United States
07/11/2015 06:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
:racist5:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 69699666
United Kingdom
07/11/2015 07:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
did you know it is profanity to take an oath.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 69731404
United States
07/11/2015 07:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
When will the start defending the Constitution against DOMESTIC ENEMIES?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 65565438
United States
07/11/2015 07:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
When will the start defending the Constitution against DOMESTIC ENEMIES?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69731404


Never.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 69731404
United States
07/11/2015 07:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
When will the start defending the Constitution against DOMESTIC ENEMIES?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69731404


Never.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 65565438


I do believe that Oath was originally intended for the militia. Much easier to honor your Oath when you are a free man and not a slave to higher-ups.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 65749789
United States
07/11/2015 08:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
idiots will be idiots

it is the jurisdiction of the FBI to handle any unlawful actions being carried out amongst government ranks

when war starts that it is when the oath is upheld

you fucking idiots...stop talking shit..you're lame
Chas

User ID: 69631976
United States
07/11/2015 08:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment


The 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.

Military discipline and effectiveness is built on the foundation of obedience to orders. Recruits are taught to obey, immediately and without question, orders from their superiors, right from day-one of boot camp.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences”

Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).
Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you’re given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.

“I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799.

During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

HAT-TIP to About.com

The NCOs in our military are the ones who suffer the most from orders that are questionable at best. They are responsible for directing the junior enlisted servicemen, who are most susceptible to following illegal orders. Pray for our small unit leaders and give them the courage they need to follow all lawful orders.

~Justin
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 63063761

Chas
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 65565438
United States
07/11/2015 08:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
When will the start defending the Constitution against DOMESTIC ENEMIES?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69731404


Never.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 65565438


I do believe that Oath was originally intended for the militia. Much easier to honor your Oath when you are a free man and not a slave to higher-ups.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69731404


I took that oath.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11956667
United States
07/11/2015 08:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
idiots will be idiots

it is the jurisdiction of the FBI to handle any unlawful actions being carried out amongst government ranks

when war starts that it is when the oath is upheld

you fucking idiots...stop talking shit..you're lame
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 65749789


Ahh, I don't think the FBI has anything to do with our Military. They have all their own people to investigate any unlawful act.
The FBI work for is there own entity for Civilian and trade crimes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 69731404
United States
07/11/2015 08:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
idiots will be idiots

it is the jurisdiction of the FBI to handle any unlawful actions being carried out amongst government ranks

when war starts that it is when the oath is upheld

you fucking idiots...stop talking shit..you're lame
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 65749789


Wow.. The government must be squeaky clean and on the up and up since the FBI never does much to defend the Constitution against DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

norespect
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16178844
United States
07/11/2015 08:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
When will the start defending the Constitution against DOMESTIC ENEMIES?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69731404


Never.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 65565438


I do believe that Oath was originally intended for the militia. Much easier to honor your Oath when you are a free man and not a slave to higher-ups.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69731404


I took that oath.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 65565438


As did many.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 69731404
United States
07/11/2015 08:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: U.S. military’s Oath of Enlistment
And the DOMESTIC ENEMIES swarm all over DC and state/local governments everywhere.





GLP