Text 21189, 141 rader
Skriven 2008-09-21 15:51:06 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 21161 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Duty Honor Count
========================
Hello Jeff,

>LL>American soldiers swear no oath to any politician or political
>LL>party.

>LL>American soldiers swear an oath to "support and defend the
>LL>Constitution", which your beloved president calls "just a goddamn
>LL>piece of paper."

>JS>Doesn't the oath of elistment also specify and state that "that
>JS>I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"? Last
>JS>time I checked a president was most certainly a politician

>LL>A US soldier's sworn duty is first and foremost to bear true faith
>LL>and allegiance to the United States of America, as stated in the oath
>LL>of enlistment - "I will support and defend the Constitution against
>LL>all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
>LL>allegiance to the same".

>LL>Where does it say in the oath to bear true faith and allegiance
>LL>to a politician or political party?  NOWHERE!

JS>Umm.. Try here.

JS>"In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

JS>I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
JS>support and defend the Constitution of the United States
JS>against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
JS>true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey
JS>the orders of the President of the United States and the
JS>orders of the officers appointed over me, according to
JS>regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So
JS>help me God. "

JS>Taken from:

JS>http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

Like I said, a soldier's sworn duty is to bear true faith and
allegiance to the United States of America, not to any politician
and/or political party.

>LL>A soldier does have a duty to obey all [lawful] orders of the
>LL>officers appointed over him, including the President of the United
>LL>States (as Commander in Chief).

JS>Which is understandable and expected.

As stated in the oath of enlistment.

>LL>But that is not the same thing as swearing allegiance to a politician
>LL>or political party.  Only a sworn duty to obey all lawful orders.

JS>Given the current oath as quoted above that no longer seems to be
JS>the case.

The current oath has been in place since 1962, changed only to
be the same as commanding officers in regards to the Uniform Code
of Military Justice.  Which means that ALL soldiers, regardless
of rank, are to obey all LAWFUL orders given by their commanding
officers, including the President (as Commander in Chief).

>LL>In fact, it is a soldier's sworn duty to REFUSE an order given
>LL>by his/her commanding officer (including that of the President of
>LL>the United States) if it is an unlawful order.

JS>Unlawful by the soldiers knowedge of the law?

Unlawful as in AGAINST THE LAW.  Ignorance is no excuse.
Soldiers at Abu Ghraib found that out - the hard way.

JS>I understand what you mean Lee.

Of course you do.  Anybody who reads the oath of enlistment
with any degree of reading comprehension would.

JS>But this could be an easy excuse for a soldier not wanting to
JS>obey an order.

That is why soldiers are expected to abide by the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.  In fact, soldiers take an oath to do so.  ;)

JS>There would need to be a very strict handling of any
JS>military personel who refuse to obey and order from a superior officer.

See Uniform Code of Military Justice.

JS>Just as there should also be for any officer regardless of rank who
JS>issues an unlawfull order.

Again, see Uniform Code of Military Justice.

>LL>Does the soldier comply with the order given by his commanding
>LL>officer? If the soldier refuses, his commanding officer could execute
>LL>the soldier on the spot for refusing an order.

JS>What the soldier's presumption of what the order really meant is a
JS>variable. If I were given such an order I would do my best to execute
JS>the order as given.

During WWII you would have had no choice, given the alternative.  ;)

JS>If there was any doubt on my part I would get a clarification so
JS>there was no doubt about the intent of the order.

During WWII that clarification would have been made very clear by
your commanding officer who would have taken out his .45 caliber
pistol pointing it at your head saying "Have I made myself clear?"

JS>IF the superior officer left me with no doubt that an order given
JS>to me was illegal. I would refuse and take the proper steps to CMA
JS>as necessary.

During WWII you would not have had that option.  ;)

JS>If a soldier is given an order that will likely result in the deaths
JS>of civilians. Is it right for the soldier to refuse the order?

JS>It is the soldier that usually knows the least about why (s)he
JS>is doing what they have been ordered to do.

It is a soldier's duty and obligation to refuse such an order.
Ignorance is no excuse, as certain soldiers at Abu Ghraib found
out.  It's too bad their higher ups were not charged and/or
convicted, as they were the real criminals.

>LL>That is why the oath of enlistment was changed after WWII to its
>LL>present form and wording, so that ALL soldiers (regardless of rank)
>LL>must abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And yet not all soldiers are held responsible or accountable for
their actions, including those in high places.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)