• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are you serving in the Armed Forces or Law Enforcement?

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

richlub wrote:
SFCRetired wrote:
Sorry, but that boy does not sound like he is playing with a full deck.

I have enough faith in the current crop of American servicemen and women to fully believe that none of them will obey an order to proceed against their fellow Americans. I've had the distinct privilige and honor of serving with, leading, and being led bythese young men and women. I trust them.

It's their leaders in the Legislative and Executive branches that I have a problem with. I do believe that, if push came down to shove, the senior officers and noncoms of the services would not betray their oath.

I believe the message implies that "push has come to shove" and they are trying to get word to the various forces as a heads up. I believe that they also do believe that the people in the military will uphold their oaths. I think you would be hard pressed to find any rational individual today, that wouldn't agree that our government is largely ignoring our constitution. It is also very obvious to a large portion of the country that they are trying to eliminate capitalism and go socialist. A large majority of this country I don't believe will allow that to happen, without a fight.
+1 I also believe that these fine young soldiers,sailors,airmen and marines will NOT throw down on our citizens and will believe and defend the constitution. The oath states "obey the lawful orders of the President and those officers appointed above me." Any order given must not violate the constitution, or the laws of land warfare, Geneva Convention etc. Of course I'm basing this on my own beliefs and faith in the soldiers I led and the officers I served under.
 

Rob_B

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Spring, Texas, USA
imported post

I remember swearing to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

I'd classify the current administration, along with quite a few members of congress as domestic threats to the constitution. :banghead:
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I was emailed that yesterday. As I commented then, if you are going to almost call for an armed insurrection the least you can do is record your message in stereo. That it is recorded mono and LEFT channel to boot makes me suspicious. :uhoh:
:p

Seriously though, I think the guy comes off as being a few bananas short of a crate. The set, the introduction by the "aide" and the "aide" standing nearby throughout I'm sure was intended to give it an air of a formal, upper level government press conference. However, the audio quality and Gary's scraggly goatee and mustache instead give the air of someone living in his mom's basement usually playing video games taking himself overly seriously.
 

Dustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
1,723
Location
Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Rob_B wrote:
I remember swearing to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

I'd classify the current administration, along with quite a few members of congress as domestic threats to the constitution. :banghead:


Same here ...


My question is, will LEO's do the same? being that alot of what they do now is UNconstitutional.
 

JosephMingle

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
110
Location
Yorktown VA
imported post

KansasMustang wrote:
+1 I also believe that these fine young soldiers,sailors,airmen and marines will NOT throw down on our citizens and will believe and defend the constitution. The oath states "obey the lawful orders of the President and those officers appointed above me." Any order given must not violate the constitution, or the laws of land warfare, Geneva Convention etc. Of course I'm basing this on my own beliefs and faith in the soldiers I led and the officers I served under.
Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


"obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."


An officer's oath is first and foremost to the Constitution, then to the well and faithfulexecution of his duties- which points right back to the Constitution.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Rob_B wrote:
I remember swearing to "defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

I'd classify the current administration, along with quite a few members of congress as domestic threats to the constitution. :banghead:
I took the same oath as an Air Force Officer and current Air Force Civilian. Working with the guys I do today, CGOs and above, they aren't going to forget their oaths and become mindless SS because Obooba says so. Not so sure about the dumb fucks that are cops, however. I'd hope most would follow their oaths, but there are too many that have room temperature IQs to suit me.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

JosephMingle wrote:
KansasMustang wrote:
+1 I also believe that these fine young soldiers,sailors,airmen and marines will NOT throw down on our citizens and will believe and defend the constitution. The oath states "obey the lawful orders of the President and those officers appointed above me." Any order given must not violate the constitution, or the laws of land warfare, Geneva Convention etc. Of course I'm basing this on my own beliefs and faith in the soldiers I led and the officers I served under.
Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


"obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."


An officer's oath is first and foremost to the Constitution, then to the well and faithfulexecution of his duties- which points right back to the Constitution.

Yes it does, or it did when I took it in the '70s, at least.



[align=center]The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:[/align]


"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).
 

Dom

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
imported post

I wish I could be as optimistic as you all about any branch of the military or law enforcement disobeying orders in favor of the Constitution. Such mass disobedience hasn't happened in our history, quite the contrary: the Bonus Army, Kent State, Katrina, etc. We fought a Civil War on orders rather than keeping to the Constitution.

As Col. Nathan Jessup says, "We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple."
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

Dom wrote:
I wish I could be as optimistic as you all about any branch of the military or law enforcement disobeying orders in favor of the Constitution. Such mass disobedience hasn't happened in our history, quite the contrary: the Bonus Army, Kent State, Katrina, etc. We fought a Civil War on orders rather than keeping to the Constitution.

As Col. Nathan Jessup says, "We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple."
Not sure about the other services, but in the LAMS (leadership and management) course that we are required to take at E-5, teaches us to question and re-evaluate orders we receive all the time based upon ethics, logic and probable outcome.

Not many "brainwashed" people I work with, especially at the levels of leadership that deal with. There are certainly gung ho people, but not many I would consider federal fanatics.

I even took a copy of bill 4009 (Washington State Sovereignty) to work and passed it around. Some looked skeptical, but no one seemed upset or too surprised that 21 other states were also calling for it.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Gunslinger wrote:
JosephMingle wrote:
Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


"obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
Yes it does, or it did when I took it in the '70s, at least.
The current oath is specified in 5 USC 3331:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

To the Constitution, against its enemies. Nothing at all about obeying the chain of command.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
JosephMingle wrote:
Something to consider; a commissioned officers' oath does not include this phrase:


"obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
Yes it does, or it did when I took it in the '70s, at least.
The current oath is specified in 5 USC 3331:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

To the Constitution, against its enemies. Nothing at all about obeying the chain of command.
That's the oath I took as an Air Force civilian. As I said, the oath I took as an officer was as noted. I see that the current oath was updated in Jan 07.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Gunslinger wrote:
I'd hope most (LEOs) would follow their oaths, but there are too many that have room temperature IQs to suit me.
I honestly busted out laughing after reading that.

Then I realized you're correct. Scary thought! :shock:
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
I'd hope most (LEOs) would follow their oaths, but there are too many that have room temperature IQs to suit me.
I honestly busted out laughing after reading that.

Then I realized you're correct. Scary thought! :shock:
What are you laughing at??!!! You used to be one!! :lol:

Room temperature IQ.. classic!!! :lol:
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
What are you laughing at??!!! You used to be one!! :lol:

Room temperature IQ.. classic!!! :lol:

Correct. And this is exactly why I am not a rocket scientist at NASA.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

In my experience most LEOs and military will not follow an outrightillegal order. The problem is that many are not in a position to determine of an order is legal or not. For many who are not in this position it may seem simple but it really is not as clear as we might all wish.

If these things were simple none of us would need to quote Supreme Court decisions to support postings on this website. We would also not need to cite code sections and the argue over what the words actually mean.

The biggest litmus test will be if the military knows that being deployed against US citizens on US soil is illegal. if they do in fact know this is illegal and refuse to follow orders in that area then we and the Constitution may stand a chance.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
In my experience most LEOs and military will not follow an outrightillegal order. The problem is that many are not in a position to determine of an order is legal or not. For many who are not in this position it may seem simple but it really is not as clear as we might all wish.
It would depend on their position in the organization and how comfortable they would be in questioning it and under what conditions (routine, stressed, emergency, etc.) they would be questioning it. At my rank, I have more luxury and knowledge to question such orders than say, a SN out of boot camp. Conversely, I also have much more of a chance to be the one giving such orders than that SN. I also have more responsibility of ownership of any order I give or carry out than that SN.

If a military/LEO member had several hours in which to research and think about a questionable order, the chances are higher that they would do so. If they were given an order in an emergency (shoot that man or we all die) situation, the chances are it will be examined after the fact. We see that scenario come to life quite often in Iraq, and more often than it should, in our own cities by LEO.

At the end of the day, most military/LEO follow or refuse orders based not upon the legal or punitive consequences, but based upon what is going to get them home alive, unharmed and able to live with themselves afterward. In that order.

Such a decision, factoring all the above, made at a moments notice, is anything but simple or clear. As the time for decision making on each incident and scenario increases however, so should the expectation that a better and more reasoned response should be made.

I believe we don't give enough leeway for decisions made under the former, and way too much leeway for decisions made under the later.
 
Top