Military Oathtakers

[Douger]

"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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."

That's the oath I took on becoming a letter carrier for the USPS. Pretty sure it's the same oath for anyone in govt service.

It started with the Patriot act

Get your flag waving, brainwashed, asses to Washington and demand restoration of the constitution and bill of rights.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

New was found guilty of Disobeying a legal order. He has taken it through several appeals courts and has lost at every level. He was in violation not the order.
UCMJ Disobeying orders at one's own risk « Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)

 

[Walt]

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

New was found guilty of Disobeying a legal order. He has taken it through several appeals courts and has lost at every level. He was in violation not the order.
UCMJ Disobeying orders at one's own risk « Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)

So it is a legal order if you are orderd to say, smoke pot? Even though it violates the UCMJ? That makes not sense and I disagree with the decision handed down in this case.

From your link.

The UCMJ disagrees. Article 90 reads in part:
(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.

(a) Lawfulness of the order.

(i) Inference of lawfulness. 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.

Are soldiers not punished for violating the UCMJ? To order someone to violate the UCMJ is of its salf a crime. To order someone to violate the UCMJ IS a patently illegal order.

 

[pinqy]

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

The UCMJ doesn't mention patches, let alone authorize any. UCMJ Patches and other insignia are covered in AR 670-1 which does allow commanders to modify the uniform for safety reasons as long as there is no cost to the soldier. "The military judge found that the distinctive uniforms and easily recognizable identifiers which appellants commanders ordered for the FYROM UNPREDEP mission had the practical combat function of enhancing the units tactical effectiveness and safety while performing the FYROM UNPREDEP mission and therefore were permissible changes envisioned by the regulation." UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

 

[Walt]

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

The UCMJ doesn't mention patches, let alone authorize any. UCMJ Patches and other insignia are covered in AR 670-1 which does allow commanders to modify the uniform for safety reasons as long as there is no cost to the soldier. "The military judge found that the distinctive uniforms and easily recognizable identifiers which appellants commanders ordered for the FYROM UNPREDEP mission had the practical combat function of enhancing the units tactical effectiveness and safety while performing the FYROM UNPREDEP mission and therefore were permissible changes envisioned by the regulation." UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

You are correct it is not in the UCMJ. However I disagree that a patch and beret are considered "saftey" equipment. There are other regualtions against this. I also disagree our soldiers should take an oath to the UN.

Wearing the U.N. insignia violates Army uniform regulations
We have already seen that the Constitution, the United States Code, and the Department of Defense Regulations clearly prohibit the use of the United Nations insignia in manner required in this case. Express approval of the Congress of the United States is required to wear any insignia of a foreign government. The United Nations is defined by law as a foreign government within the meaning of this rule. Therefore, any Army regulation to the contrary cannot stand under this superior law.
However, Army regulations themselves clearly prohibit the use of the U.N. insignia in this case. AR 670-1 Para. 1-4 provides:

Only uniforms, accessories, and insignia prescribed in this regulation or in the Common Tables of Allowance (CTA) (8), or as approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), will be worn by personnel in the U.S. Army.
AR 670-1 Para. 3-4 governs insignia to be worn on the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). Para. 3-4(k) contains the following express prohibition: "Foreign badges, distinctive units insignia, and regiment distinctive insignia will not be worn on these uniforms." (Emphasis supplied.)
AR 670-1 Para. 26-3 specifies the types of berets which are authorized for wear by U.S. Army personnel. These are: the black beret (Ranger units), the green beret (Special Forces), and the maroon beret (airborne units). The United Nations blue beret is not listed in this chapter, nor anywhere else in AR 670-1, and is not authorized for wear.

U.N. blue baseball caps are not to be found anywhere in AR 670-1. The BDU has specified caps which are authorized. (Para. 3-2(b)(1)). Optional headgear are limited to authorized berets and Drill Sergeant hats. (Para. 3-2 (c)(7)).

Para. 27-16 of AR 670-1 covers SSI. Para. 27-16a specifically lists echelons (e.g., divisions, regiments, brigades, etc.) authorized to wear SSI. The unit to which SPC New was assigned is now part of United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR). UNPROFOR are not listed in this section and their SSI is therefore unauthorized.

AR 670-1 Chapter 28 governs the wearing of decorations, service medals, badges, unit awards, and appurtenances. This chapter expressly governs the wearing of "foreign military decorations" (Para. 28-6(h)), "foreign unit awards" (Para. 28-6(i)); and "non-U.S. service medals and ribbons" (Para. 28-6(j)). None of these subsections even arguably authorizes the wearing of the U.N. insignia relevant to this case. Moreover, Para. 28-3 makes it clear that commanders may require subordinates to wear authorized awards in parades, reviews, inspections, funerals, ceremonial, and social occasions. On all other occasions "awards may be worn by all soldiers on the class B uniform at the wearer's option during duty hours and when off duty." Para. 28-3(c). Obviously, the class B uniform is not the BDU. No authorization exists to compel a soldier to wear foreign decorations on the BDU under any circumstances.

Memorandum: Unauthorized Alteration in Uniform

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

The UCMJ doesn't mention patches, let alone authorize any. UCMJ Patches and other insignia are covered in AR 670-1 which does allow commanders to modify the uniform for safety reasons as long as there is no cost to the soldier. "The military judge found that the distinctive uniforms and easily recognizable identifiers which appellants commanders ordered for the FYROM UNPREDEP mission had the practical combat function of enhancing the units tactical effectiveness and safety while performing the FYROM UNPREDEP mission and therefore were permissible changes envisioned by the regulation." UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

You are correct it is not in the UCMJ. However I disagree that a patch and beret are considered "saftey" equipment. There are other regualtions against this. I also disagree our soldiers should take an oath to the UN.

Wearing the U.N. insignia violates Army uniform regulations
We have already seen that the Constitution, the United States Code, and the Department of Defense Regulations clearly prohibit the use of the United Nations insignia in manner required in this case. Express approval of the Congress of the United States is required to wear any insignia of a foreign government. The United Nations is defined by law as a foreign government within the meaning of this rule. Therefore, any Army regulation to the contrary cannot stand under this superior law.
However, Army regulations themselves clearly prohibit the use of the U.N. insignia in this case. AR 670-1 Para. 1-4 provides:

Only uniforms, accessories, and insignia prescribed in this regulation or in the Common Tables of Allowance (CTA) (8), or as approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), will be worn by personnel in the U.S. Army.
AR 670-1 Para. 3-4 governs insignia to be worn on the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). Para. 3-4(k) contains the following express prohibition: "Foreign badges, distinctive units insignia, and regiment distinctive insignia will not be worn on these uniforms." (Emphasis supplied.)
AR 670-1 Para. 26-3 specifies the types of berets which are authorized for wear by U.S. Army personnel. These are: the black beret (Ranger units), the green beret (Special Forces), and the maroon beret (airborne units). The United Nations blue beret is not listed in this chapter, nor anywhere else in AR 670-1, and is not authorized for wear.

U.N. blue baseball caps are not to be found anywhere in AR 670-1. The BDU has specified caps which are authorized. (Para. 3-2(b)(1)). Optional headgear are limited to authorized berets and Drill Sergeant hats. (Para. 3-2 (c)(7)).

Para. 27-16 of AR 670-1 covers SSI. Para. 27-16a specifically lists echelons (e.g., divisions, regiments, brigades, etc.) authorized to wear SSI. The unit to which SPC New was assigned is now part of United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR). UNPROFOR are not listed in this section and their SSI is therefore unauthorized.

AR 670-1 Chapter 28 governs the wearing of decorations, service medals, badges, unit awards, and appurtenances. This chapter expressly governs the wearing of "foreign military decorations" (Para. 28-6(h)), "foreign unit awards" (Para. 28-6(i)); and "non-U.S. service medals and ribbons" (Para. 28-6(j)). None of these subsections even arguably authorizes the wearing of the U.N. insignia relevant to this case. Moreover, Para. 28-3 makes it clear that commanders may require subordinates to wear authorized awards in parades, reviews, inspections, funerals, ceremonial, and social occasions. On all other occasions "awards may be worn by all soldiers on the class B uniform at the wearer's option during duty hours and when off duty." Para. 28-3(c). Obviously, the class B uniform is not the BDU. No authorization exists to compel a soldier to wear foreign decorations on the BDU under any circumstances.

Memorandum: Unauthorized Alteration in Uniform

Well I hate to inform you but the Military courts and the civilian appeals courts have ruled that you are wrong. I think they know more than anyone on this board.

 

[Walt]

The UCMJ doesn't mention patches, let alone authorize any. UCMJ Patches and other insignia are covered in AR 670-1 which does allow commanders to modify the uniform for safety reasons as long as there is no cost to the soldier. "The military judge found that the distinctive uniforms and easily recognizable identifiers which appellants commanders ordered for the FYROM UNPREDEP mission had the practical combat function of enhancing the units tactical effectiveness and safety while performing the FYROM UNPREDEP mission and therefore were permissible changes envisioned by the regulation." UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

You are correct it is not in the UCMJ. However I disagree that a patch and beret are considered "saftey" equipment. There are other regualtions against this. I also disagree our soldiers should take an oath to the UN.

Wearing the U.N. insignia violates Army uniform regulations
We have already seen that the Constitution, the United States Code, and the Department of Defense Regulations clearly prohibit the use of the United Nations insignia in manner required in this case. Express approval of the Congress of the United States is required to wear any insignia of a foreign government. The United Nations is defined by law as a foreign government within the meaning of this rule. Therefore, any Army regulation to the contrary cannot stand under this superior law.
However, Army regulations themselves clearly prohibit the use of the U.N. insignia in this case. AR 670-1 Para. 1-4 provides:

Only uniforms, accessories, and insignia prescribed in this regulation or in the Common Tables of Allowance (CTA) (8), or as approved by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), will be worn by personnel in the U.S. Army.
AR 670-1 Para. 3-4 governs insignia to be worn on the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). Para. 3-4(k) contains the following express prohibition: "Foreign badges, distinctive units insignia, and regiment distinctive insignia will not be worn on these uniforms." (Emphasis supplied.)
AR 670-1 Para. 26-3 specifies the types of berets which are authorized for wear by U.S. Army personnel. These are: the black beret (Ranger units), the green beret (Special Forces), and the maroon beret (airborne units). The United Nations blue beret is not listed in this chapter, nor anywhere else in AR 670-1, and is not authorized for wear.

U.N. blue baseball caps are not to be found anywhere in AR 670-1. The BDU has specified caps which are authorized. (Para. 3-2(b)(1)). Optional headgear are limited to authorized berets and Drill Sergeant hats. (Para. 3-2 (c)(7)).

Para. 27-16 of AR 670-1 covers SSI. Para. 27-16a specifically lists echelons (e.g., divisions, regiments, brigades, etc.) authorized to wear SSI. The unit to which SPC New was assigned is now part of United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR). UNPROFOR are not listed in this section and their SSI is therefore unauthorized.

AR 670-1 Chapter 28 governs the wearing of decorations, service medals, badges, unit awards, and appurtenances. This chapter expressly governs the wearing of "foreign military decorations" (Para. 28-6(h)), "foreign unit awards" (Para. 28-6(i)); and "non-U.S. service medals and ribbons" (Para. 28-6(j)). None of these subsections even arguably authorizes the wearing of the U.N. insignia relevant to this case. Moreover, Para. 28-3 makes it clear that commanders may require subordinates to wear authorized awards in parades, reviews, inspections, funerals, ceremonial, and social occasions. On all other occasions "awards may be worn by all soldiers on the class B uniform at the wearer's option during duty hours and when off duty." Para. 28-3(c). Obviously, the class B uniform is not the BDU. No authorization exists to compel a soldier to wear foreign decorations on the BDU under any circumstances.

Memorandum: Unauthorized Alteration in Uniform

Well I hate to inform you but the Military courts and the civilian appeals courts have ruled that you are wrong. I think they know more than anyone on this board.

I know what the courts said. I am still afforded the right to disagree with their decision. I believe they were wrong and the decision was politically motivated.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You are correct it is not in the UCMJ. However I disagree that a patch and beret are considered "saftey" equipment. There are other regualtions against this. I also disagree our soldiers should take an oath to the UN.



Memorandum: Unauthorized Alteration in Uniform

Well I hate to inform you but the Military courts and the civilian appeals courts have ruled that you are wrong. I think they know more than anyone on this board.

I know what the courts said. I am still afforded the right to disagree with their decision. I believe they were wrong and the decision was politically motivated.

By all means you have the right.You are wrong but you do have the right.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So it is a legal order if you are orderd to say, smoke pot? Even though it violates the UCMJ? That makes not sense and I disagree with the decision handed down in this case.

Yes..it is technically a "legal" order and must be followed...however, after following that order you are to report it to the senior of the person who issued the order so appropriate action can be taken. We were always instructed to follow all orders and then if you had a problem with any the orders given take it up the chain of command.

 

[Abntrooper]

Believe Strongly Our Founding Fathers Were Way Ahead of their Time. Is there not a provision for those who don't uphold the Oath They swore to uphold. I have heard it is election day. I believe a serious offense against Our Country would be Treason and should not have to wait for election day. Appreciate all feedback. God Bless America
The Greatest Country in The World. Many have been ready to die to get here and not many are dying to leave.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Interesting site. The ideal is correct. We DO swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US, not its politicians. Further, carrying out an unlawful order is unlawful in and of itself, and it is the duty of every servicemember from all services to refuse to obey such and order and report such an unlawful order immediately.

That said, I seem to vaguely recall some rule or law that while in the US Armed Forces, servicemembers could not swear an oath of allegience to any organization that would supersede the oath of enlistment.

Where this comes into play is, just where do you draw the line between politicians and the Constitution? The Constitution, in particular the 10th Amendment, is violated daily by the Fed. Who employs the military? The Fed.

I'm impressed, eots, that you actually came up with something interesting to discus.

yes Sir !.. ..thank you..Sir !

He's wasn't a "Sir"...........Don't insult us NCO's like that. We worked for our measly pay!

Good thread by the way, Eots!........Nice change from the norm we get from you!