Looks like its fixin to get for real boys and girls.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Ghost1958, Jul 5, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    That is a darned good question! The first half that oath is to obey the Constitution. The 2nd half is to obey the President ... even a rogue President who is trashing the Constitution. There is direct conflict in the oath itself.

    My gut feeling is that if some rogue President violated the Constitution to the point of causing a general armed revolt, those in the military would be forced to pick sides, and there would likely be a revolt within the military itself. Most people in the military (I think) are true patriots. It is a different story for the top brass, many of which are aligned with the deep state.

    I think most in the military would regard the first half of that oath to take precedence over the 2nd half. If I am wrong, it is going to get very bloody indeed. If I am right, there will be a whole lot of deep state top brass getting summarily executed by their own troops.

    I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that any retired military officer can re-activate if called upon. Most of those are NOT aligned with the deep state.

    It could get very, very interesting.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  2. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,137
    2,903
    113
    The oath does not entitle you to determine which order is constitutional. Or else any schmuck in uniform would be his own constitutional authority. You can of course disobey at your own risk. If you end up disciplined or court martialed, your reading of the Constitution will not help your case, at all.
     
    alsaqr and Nmwabbit like this.

  3. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    If the sort of revolt that I envision happening within the military itself actually happens, those trying to "discipline" them or arrest them or court martial them will simply be shot and those trying to "discipline' them or arrest them or court martial them will do so at their own risk. Any schnuck who can read can understand "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
     
  4. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,137
    2,903
    113
    This dude is why nobody reads what you tell them to. You are in your own world.
     
    alsaqr and locutus like this.
  5. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    I don't know what part of "revolt" you don't understand.
    popcorn eating.gif
     
  6. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Guest

    As mentioned previously what you are publicly promoting, is sedition as defined by 18 USC 2384!

    enjoy
     
    locutus likes this.
  7. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,615
    2,349
    113
    Just wondering what the UCMJ/regulations state, regarding clearly unlawful or clearly unconstitutional orders, despite that bit about obeying orders. The oath's not in a vacuum: it's subject to the regulations and UCMJ.

    It's a sticky situation, to be sure. But, blind devotion and obedience can be a dangerous thing, when liberty's in the cross hairs. Surely there are limits specified, the military being what it is. Despite wanting all the control it can have within ranks.
     
    Ghost1958 and Rancid like this.
  8. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    I am not PROMOTING anything whatsoever ... just WARNING of what COULD happen and probably WILL happen if certain things transpire. Enjoy your unfounded knee-jerking. ;)

    I advise paying attention to the words "foreign and domestic" in that military oath. Defending the Constitution from an over-reaching government is not sedition, it is patriotism ... and the primary reason we have our 2nd amendment.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    G66enigma and Ghost1958 like this.
  9. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,137
    2,903
    113
    Okay. Do YOU think people who wrote, approved and revised the oath were oblivious? Or wanted to make it self contradictory? Until we right here pointed out the danger?

    In real life it’s not that complicated. A decorated Lt Col breaks the chain of command on ethical grounds. He testifies in Congress. He is reassigned. He responds by retiring. Life goes on.
     
    schnuffleupagus and locutus like this.
  10. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    22,025
    13,345
    113
    And who determines what is over-reaching of the Constitution?? You????:rolleyes:

    The founding fathers were reasonable, prudent men. They would never have tolerated fanatics twisting their words.

    Believe, the extreme, fanatical right is just as dangerous to our liberty as the extreme fanatical left.
     
    manta, Mercator and alsaqr like this.
  11. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    Just how ridiculous can you get? Nobody is twisting our founding fathers' words ... but many would like to ignore them, mostly the extreme fanatical left.
    popcorn eating.gif
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  12. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Guest

    art 94:

    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who—
    (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
    (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
    (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer orcommanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

    (b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 68.)
     
  13. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    Are there any lawyers present who can define "lawful military authority" and "lawful civil authority"? Operative words in both instances being "lawful"?
     
  14. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Guest

    hummm seems there is a slight disagreement within your posting...
     
  15. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    Do you even remotely understand the difference between promoting a revolt and warning of one? Hummm? And that talking about one and what one might look like is NOT promoting one? Hummm? Good lord already! Cwazy wabbit. :p
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  16. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,615
    2,349
    113
    No. But I see clear leeway engineered into those things to allow a "grunt" to refuse a clearly nefarious order. (Something on the order of: "Okay, Johnny, I want you to murder that little old lady and her family of children there. And do it pronto." No fool alive should obey such crap, irrespective that it's "the military" issuing such crap.)

    Of course, the difficulty comes when more-esoteric outrages against civil liberties and the constitutional rule of law are attempted. The "grunt" still has every right, as a human, a citizen, and an oath-taker, to refuse such a direct command, the command structure notwithstanding. But, yeah, as you point out, it'll get very "sticky" for such a person given the fact that (it being human nature) those in command despise not having their commands carried out.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  17. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member

    1,615
    2,349
    113
    Keyword: lawful.

    And merely uttering it doesn't make it lawful.

    No more than being elected gives carte blanche to craft any garbage one can think of onto paper and call it "law."
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  18. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    497
    354
    63
    Might I point out that the entire dynamic changes drastically when it isn't just one hapless "grunt" being given such an egregious order but thousands or tens of thousands of them; they are pointing rifles and their superiors are only pointing desks and the military police are totally out-gunned.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
  19. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Guest

    Flash back to Calley’s infamous defence,

    “...he was following the orders of his immediate superior...”

    “...Calley backed up about 20 feet, opened fire on them himself and ordered Meadlo to join in, which he did.”

    “I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy.”

    “I felt then and I still do that I acted as I was directed, and I carried out the order that I was given and I do not feel wrong in doing so.

    my lai massacre 109+/- non-combatants civilian villagers killed...because an idiot LT obeyed an allegedly lawful order without questioning it!

    ya G66enigma, et al., hold on to the concept of “lawful” order!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2020
  20. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    22,025
    13,345
    113
    All of this talk about revolution and civil war is hogwash. Aint gonna happen.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.