We swore an oath

[Mrs Cooper]

Out of curiosity, Delta, what then are your thoughts as specifically applied to the Ehren Watada case? Did God release him from his oath even though a legal and political decision was rendered in his favor? Does your above opinion get rendered on a case by case basis according to whom is in office at the time or is it consistent no matter whom is in the highest up the chain of command at the time? thanks in advance for taking the time to reply.

 

[Darkwind]

Couldn't have said this better myself so am reprinting a post from another board (url excluded obviously.) And while this is for active-duty, dunno about you but I never swore an oath negating the first one when I got out.

If a veteran feels proud of their service they should. But if they then bash a sitting President their breaking a solemn oath before God. Don't have to like President Obama or any other, but we do have to respect the Office of the President. When we salute those higher in rank, we're not saluting the person but the rank or office or position.

Just keep that in mind.

I, [your name] do solemnly swear 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.



"I know that the veterans' forum is supposed to be apolitical, and I'm saying this, not because I have any love for our new Commander-In-Chief, but because all of us took an oath and, regardless of the whims of the electorate, that oath is what makes us who we are. Towards that end, I am reminding all currently serving military personnel, myself included, of the text of Articles 88 and 94 of the UCMJ:

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(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 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 or commanding 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.

I have no doubt that the executive branch will now be scrutinizing the armed forces for breaches of conduct in this area. I advise all military personnel to ensure that our disagreements with the policies and positions of our new chain of command be expressed in a respectful and professional manner, and that we remember that we speak only for ourselves and not our branches of service."

UCMJ is applicable to active duty only.

However, I do take My oath serious. You'll note that the oath is to the Constitution and the Constitution only. That the rest is a matter of the chain of command and lawful orders.

Take note of the highlighted part of your OP.

Disagreeing with a President whose policies are harming America and are in direct conflict with the Constitution is in keeping with My oath.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good point (though slightly flawed) made by the OP. I say flawed because, in the best of worlds, all Americans would be patriotic and loyal to their country. But as you can see, the anti-America Pootarians have no end of excuses for their traitorous words.

OTOH, our First Amendment gives them the right to be stupid. Just as it gives them the right to be disloyal to the point that they figuratively hump the leg of America's enemies.

Damn, even dumber than the OP. Didn't think it was possible, but Duddly is always willing to step in to make people look smart.