Military Oathtakers

[Diuretic]

Illegal orders are anything that is illegal. Things like killing unarmed civilians, etc.

Thanks Amanda, I would think that's the biggest one. My Lai came to mind immediately. I'm thinking though that it - not referring to My Lai, just generalising - that for a serving member in the military to refuse an order, unless it was absolutely obviously illegal, would be pretty damn difficult. Apart from the socialisation into a culture of adherence (I won't say "obedience", I don't see military personnel as mindless automatons) to orders (which of course is necessary for any military to function) there's the threat of punishment. It would be easier just to do what you're told and try to plead superior orders later. However I presume that's no defence in the USMCJ or civilian justice system just as it isn't a defence here. Didn't work at Nuremberg either.

That is why I have some respect for the LT. that refused to deploy to Iraq. He claimed, incorrectly, that it was an illegal order. Rather then run off to Canada he refused his orders and demanded a day in Court.

I do not think deserters are worth much and I think the LT was absolutely wrong, BUT he did it the RIGHT way. He refused what he believed to be illegal orders. He did not slink off to another country to avoid his duty.

Personally I think they should have put him in jail for as long as was allowed for the offense. But in the end the First Judge screwed the pouch and he basically got off with just a discharge.

If the Government ever tries to grab our weapons they will have to employ the military and at that point each and every member of said military will have to decide if the Presidents orders are more binding then the US Constitution.

Even if somehow they pass an Amendment to repel the 2nd there will be fighting if the Government tries to seize arms. Editec can pretend it won't happen all he wants. Initially it will be single individuals or families resisting but it will quickly blossom into open rebellion as the rest hastily organize and members of the local and State police refuse to obey the orders. Then the military will be faced with firing on American citizens or refusing.

The example of the Lt who refused to deploy is a good one. That's the sort of situation I was mulling over.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks Amanda, I would think that's the biggest one. My Lai came to mind immediately. I'm thinking though that it - not referring to My Lai, just generalising - that for a serving member in the military to refuse an order, unless it was absolutely obviously illegal, would be pretty damn difficult. Apart from the socialisation into a culture of adherence (I won't say "obedience", I don't see military personnel as mindless automatons) to orders (which of course is necessary for any military to function) there's the threat of punishment. It would be easier just to do what you're told and try to plead superior orders later. However I presume that's no defence in the USMCJ or civilian justice system just as it isn't a defence here. Didn't work at Nuremberg either.

I think that's why having your own head in order is a must. For me, I would be more than happy to serve prison time if I knew what I was doing was right. I think most people that join are doing it for principled reasons, so I think that's why we don't hear a lot about gross abuse of power.

Easy to be idealistic sitting at home not being in the situation. Fact is, there are usually no cut and dried, unlawful orders given. Orders can be vague and skirt legalities. And if you can't PROVE it's an unlawful order, cut and dried, you're ass will be had.

I wasn't being idealistic, well not in the usual sense of the word. I was actually thinking of the legalities v the realities.

I'm not averse to a defence of superior orders, it seems to me to reflect reality but many legal minds (not mine, I'm not a lawyer or legal-minded) are aghast at the idea of such a defence.

Anway your explanation is exactly what I was thinking about. If a serving member disobeys an illegal order they may well prove it was illegal yet could still be found guilty of disobedience to orders.

In my own job I've been there and it wasn't a big deal but refusing an order because it was stupid rather than illegal could have been a career limiting move for me if the supervisor I was in dispute with had taken it further.

I just think serving personnel are stuffed either way. That's the reality.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks Amanda, I would think that's the biggest one. My Lai came to mind immediately. I'm thinking though that it - not referring to My Lai, just generalising - that for a serving member in the military to refuse an order, unless it was absolutely obviously illegal, would be pretty damn difficult. Apart from the socialisation into a culture of adherence (I won't say "obedience", I don't see military personnel as mindless automatons) to orders (which of course is necessary for any military to function) there's the threat of punishment. It would be easier just to do what you're told and try to plead superior orders later. However I presume that's no defence in the USMCJ or civilian justice system just as it isn't a defence here. Didn't work at Nuremberg either.

That is why I have some respect for the LT. that refused to deploy to Iraq. He claimed, incorrectly, that it was an illegal order. Rather then run off to Canada he refused his orders and demanded a day in Court.

I do not think deserters are worth much and I think the LT was absolutely wrong, BUT he did it the RIGHT way. He refused what he believed to be illegal orders. He did not slink off to another country to avoid his duty.

Personally I think they should have put him in jail for as long as was allowed for the offense. But in the end the First Judge screwed the pouch and he basically got off with just a discharge.

If the Government ever tries to grab our weapons they will have to employ the military and at that point each and every member of said military will have to decide if the Presidents orders are more binding then the US Constitution.

Even if somehow they pass an Amendment to repel the 2nd there will be fighting if the Government tries to seize arms. Editec can pretend it won't happen all he wants. Initially it will be single individuals or families resisting but it will quickly blossom into open rebellion as the rest hastily organize and members of the local and State police refuse to obey the orders. Then the military will be faced with firing on American citizens or refusing.

The example of the Lt who refused to deploy is a good one. That's the sort of situation I was mulling over.

There is nothing to mull over on that one. The Lt refused to deploy. Being ordered to deploy is NOT unlawful.

Article 92, UCMJ is refusing to obey a lawful order. Article 87 is Missing movement. Either one or both can be applied without his personal beliefs ever coming into play.

 

[Gunny]

I think that's why having your own head in order is a must. For me, I would be more than happy to serve prison time if I knew what I was doing was right. I think most people that join are doing it for principled reasons, so I think that's why we don't hear a lot about gross abuse of power.

Easy to be idealistic sitting at home not being in the situation. Fact is, there are usually no cut and dried, unlawful orders given. Orders can be vague and skirt legalities. And if you can't PROVE it's an unlawful order, cut and dried, you're ass will be had.

I wasn't being idealistic, well not in the usual sense of the word. I was actually thinking of the legalities v the realities.

I'm not averse to a defence of superior orders, it seems to me to reflect reality but many legal minds (not mine, I'm not a lawyer or legal-minded) are aghast at the idea of such a defence.

Anway your explanation is exactly what I was thinking about. If a serving member disobeys an illegal order they may well prove it was illegal yet could still be found guilty of disobedience to orders.

In my own job I've been there and it wasn't a big deal but refusing an order because it was stupid rather than illegal could have been a career limiting move for me if the supervisor I was in dispute with had taken it further.

I just think serving personnel are stuffed either way. That's the reality.

Good thing you weren't being idealist. Since my post addresses Amanda and Amanda's post.

You have misread something. If a person can prove an order was unlawful, they cannot be prosecuted for disobeying an order, since it was unlawful. The proving is the hard part.

 

[Amanda]

Thanks Amanda, I would think that's the biggest one. My Lai came to mind immediately. I'm thinking though that it - not referring to My Lai, just generalising - that for a serving member in the military to refuse an order, unless it was absolutely obviously illegal, would be pretty damn difficult. Apart from the socialisation into a culture of adherence (I won't say "obedience", I don't see military personnel as mindless automatons) to orders (which of course is necessary for any military to function) there's the threat of punishment. It would be easier just to do what you're told and try to plead superior orders later. However I presume that's no defence in the USMCJ or civilian justice system just as it isn't a defence here. Didn't work at Nuremberg either.

I think that's why having your own head in order is a must. For me, I would be more than happy to serve prison time if I knew what I was doing was right. I think most people that join are doing it for principled reasons, so I think that's why we don't hear a lot about gross abuse of power.

Easy to be idealistic sitting at home not being in the situation. Fact is, there are usually no cut and dried, unlawful orders given. Orders can be vague and skirt legalities. And if you can't PROVE it's an unlawful order, cut and dried, you're ass will be had.

Maybe. I know right from wrong. And I have no problem taking my medicine.

 

[Diuretic]

Easy to be idealistic sitting at home not being in the situation. Fact is, there are usually no cut and dried, unlawful orders given. Orders can be vague and skirt legalities. And if you can't PROVE it's an unlawful order, cut and dried, you're ass will be had.

I wasn't being idealistic, well not in the usual sense of the word. I was actually thinking of the legalities v the realities.

I'm not averse to a defence of superior orders, it seems to me to reflect reality but many legal minds (not mine, I'm not a lawyer or legal-minded) are aghast at the idea of such a defence.

Anway your explanation is exactly what I was thinking about. If a serving member disobeys an illegal order they may well prove it was illegal yet could still be found guilty of disobedience to orders.

In my own job I've been there and it wasn't a big deal but refusing an order because it was stupid rather than illegal could have been a career limiting move for me if the supervisor I was in dispute with had taken it further.

I just think serving personnel are stuffed either way. That's the reality.

Good thing you weren't being idealist. Since my post addresses Amanda and Amanda's post.

You have misread something. If a person can prove an order was unlawful, they cannot be prosecuted for disobeying an order, since it was unlawful. The proving is the hard part.

I admit the quotes thing is confusing me.

Unlawful orders - got it, I think it depends entirely on the construction of the statute but that makes intuitive sense.

 

[nathan.perkins]

How many times have we thought this during our lives? "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country"? Now how many times could we think it (in good conscince) during the curent administration? Someday... I hope that we can take OUR country back from the hounds that tread on her and hold her up above the muck instead of within it! Thank you all for being patriots when being patriotic is unpopular! But don't just say it here... say it in places that MAKE you unpopular! Otherwise you'll ONLY be preaching to the choir and WE and our cause will be lost!
[email protected]

 

[mightypeon]

Oh really?
As Gunny said, order will rarely be obviously illegal, and having to prove the injustice of an order while beeing on some kind of frontline is a fairly difficult thing to do.

 

[JW Frogen]

There are orders and there is justice, and some times they conflict.

One of the proudest moments of my life is when I committed mutiny.

Literally, I was told I committed mutiny.

I was stationed at a Naval Air Station in Sicily, in a time of peace. We were preparing for an inspection and working seven days a week for months, but the Filipino cheifs were letting every Filipino off to go to the Filipino association meetings and bowling nights.

No one else could get off, no one. For any reason.

I got fed up and organised a protest, I wrote and passed around a petition, I had no clue but this was mutinty.

Everyone but the Filipinos signed, and the Old Man met me, he read our complaint out to me, and said he would deal with it (and he did), but he also told me I just committed mutnity, and if I ever did it again he would have my ass.

It was one of the greatest days of my life.

 

[Bfgrn]

Where the Timothy McVeigh's come from...

-----------------------------------------------------

READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States

Group asks police and military to lay down arms in response to orders deemed unlawful

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Launched in March by Las Vegan Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers bills itself as a nonpartisan group of current and retired law enforcement and military personnel who vow to fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.

More specifically, the group’s members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful, including directives to disarm the American people and to blockade American cities. By refusing the latter order, the Oath Keepers hope to prevent cities from becoming “giant concentration camps,” a scenario the 44-year-old Rhodes says he can envision happening in the coming years.

It’s a Cold War-era nightmare vision with a major twist: The occupying forces in this imagined future are American, not Soviet.

“The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here,” Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer, said in an interview with the Review-Journal. “My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t do it without them.

”We say if the American people decide it’s time for a revolution, we’ll fight with you.“

That type of rhetoric has caught the attention of groups that track extremist activity in the United States.

In a July report titled ”Return of the Militias,“ the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center singled out Oath Keepers as ”a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.“

The Patriot movement, so named because its adherents believe the federal government has stepped on the constitutional ideals of the American Revolution, gained traction in the 1990s and has been closely linked to anti-government militia and white supremacist movements.

The movement is blamed for spawning Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.

”I’m not accusing Stewart Rhodes or any member of his group of being Timothy McVeigh or a future Timothy McVeigh,“ law center spokesman Mark Potok said. ”But these kinds ofconspiracy theories are what drive a small number of people to criminal violence. ... What’s troubling about Oath Keepers is the idea that men and women armed and ordered to protect the public in this country are clearly being drawn into a world of false conspiracy theory.“

READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States - News - ReviewJournal.com

 

[editec]

Okay, you want my input?

Note that the only violation of the constitution these gun queer care about is the SECOND AMENDMENT?

Note that they DID NOT swear never to open fire on American civilians?

This is your idea of patriotism?

You guys are ready to swear alligiance to GUNS..but not to the PEOPLE of this nation?!

Guns queer is exactly the right word to describe that sort of obsessional devotion to guns.

 

[Bfgrn]

Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”

Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms...may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”

 

[Diuretic]

The way to combat extremists (of any persuasion) is to bolster the moderates.

 

[Toome]

I've been trying to be nice, but I feel compelled to slam the notion that such an organization would be deemed necessary.

Soldiers (and members of the other military branches) already swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Uniform Code of Military Justice already makes it a crime to carry out illegal orders.

During the LA riots, soldiers were deployed to restore order under provisions of the Constitution. In other words, they were legally ordered to perform actions that would otherwise be conducted by civilian authorities. Even so, there was a general reluctance by commanding officers to carry out legal orders.

Down at the troop level, the hesitancy was even greater. A gang member taunted Guardsmen and threatened to kill them. Since this was a pretty common occurrence, the Guardsmen took it in stride. Yet the gang member later returned and attempted to run over Guardsmen with his vehicle; one Guardsman was injured. He came back again, and the Guardsmen fired shots at his car tires. Only when these shots had failed to stop him did they fire into the vehicle, killing him with two shots to the head. Here's my point: the Guardsmen were already legally justified to use deadly force when the gang member made the first attempt, and I'm talking about shoot-to-kill without warning shots. (Soldiers do not fire warning shots. Neither do Marines, Sailors or Airmen.) Yet these Soldiers shot at a fellow American as a last resort even though that fellow American was clearly a street thug whose criminal intentions were clear and absolute.

So pardon me while I say that the sanctimonious bunch of holier-than-thous who created this self-righteous organization known as Military Oathtakers really missed the boat when they first took the oath.

 

[geauxtohell]

Fuck the lying politicians in Washington, the constitution is waaaaaay more important. If/when I take the oath I will refuse any order that is contradictory to the constitution. I love this country and what it stands for, not those lying assholes in DC.

You'll run into a problem when your interpretation of the constitution doesn't mesh with orders you are given.

There are times when soldiers have a moral obligation to not follow orders. Those instances are pretty clear cut.

However, serving in the military is not an appropriate venue to prompt constitutional challenges or argue constitutional law.

Other than that, the best laugh of the thread was when the "Oath Keepers" called themselves "non-partisan". Who do you think you are kidding here, fellas?

 

[geauxtohell]

Thanks Amanda, I would think that's the biggest one. My Lai came to mind immediately. I'm thinking though that it - not referring to My Lai, just generalising - that for a serving member in the military to refuse an order, unless it was absolutely obviously illegal, would be pretty damn difficult. Apart from the socialisation into a culture of adherence (I won't say "obedience", I don't see military personnel as mindless automatons) to orders (which of course is necessary for any military to function) there's the threat of punishment. It would be easier just to do what you're told and try to plead superior orders later. However I presume that's no defence in the USMCJ or civilian justice system just as it isn't a defence here. Didn't work at Nuremberg either.

You are correct. Though a big deal is made about the issue, few orders are "refused". When they are, it's for an act that would shock the conscious i.e. My Lai, not some esoteric debate about the founder's intent when they drafted the constitution.

That was tried, with poor results, but douchbags like Eric Watada.

You are also right: the "Nuremberg defense" is not considered a valid defense.

 

[geauxtohell]

Personally, I don't think they will do it. We ARE them. It would be like shooting family.

Yes, the confederacy made that same wager too. It turned out badly for them.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The only thing close to an oath I take these days other than the Pledge of Allegiance:


Preamble to the Constitution of The American Legion



For God and Country
we associate ourselves together for the
following purposes:


To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America;


To maintain Law and Order;


To foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism;


To preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the Great Wars;


To inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the Community, State and Nation;


To combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses;


To make right the Master of Might;


To promote Peace and Goodwill on earth;


To safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of Justice, Freedom and Democracy;


To consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness.


***I am the Vice Commander of my local Post.

 

[JWBooth]

Its an interesting idea, this Oathtakers group, and a damned stupid one.

Assume for a moment that the feared orders are about to come down. These folks have made themselves known. Do they think that they will be free to disobey? Haven't they got enough imagination to know that they would be gathered up first?

As an impediment to what is about to go down, they cannot be allowed to remain free. As an example to anybody thinking about following them, they cannot be allowed to remain free.

 

[Walt]

Who decides if an order to the military is unconstitutional?

Ultimately a Court would. In the mean time the troops have an obligation and a duty to refuse to obey ILLEGAL orders. EVERY American military person is TAUGHT this basic concept.

That makes sense.

I won't ask what illegal orders are, I reckon I could pretty much understand that wtihout asking for a list.

There is no defence of superior orders I assume.

What if it is in violation of the UCMJ? I bring this up with reference to the case of Michael New. It is a violation to sew any patches on your uniform other than those authorized by the UCMJ. Yet he was found guilty of disobeying an order and court martiled.

United States v. Michael G. New