Soldier refuses to deploy/follow Obama due to the POTUS is not US Citizen

[Sinner Man]

And who says our government isn't corrupt!

Just another sample of that corruption.

That's not corruption.

 

[Sinner Man]

If you repeat a word over and over... it begins to sound meaningless.
When I'm bored, I do this all the time.

infared, infared, infared, infared, infared.....

LOL but that's not a word!

 

[flagtag]

That's not corruption.

What would you call it?

 

[Serial Crusher]

What would you call it?

Security. If you're working on a defense or DARPA project, and you have someone who is a known dissenter, you get rid of them. Regardless of his motivations, he's causing trouble.

 

[flagtag]

Security. If you're working on a defense or DARPA project, and you have someone who is a known dissenter, you get rid of them. Regardless of his motivations, he's causing trouble.

I would call it "abuse of power" on the giving end, and "wussy" one the receiving end of that corrupt "order". I wonder if they could have gotten away with that (or what the consequences would have been) if the man had NOT worked for a government contracted company. (Would they have been audited, cited for imaginary infractions, etc.?)

 

[agentl074]

Well there are two things that I see.... 1. He may not have been legally born in the U.S. 2. He still took the Oath of Office for his position. 3. He is the commander in chief until congressional involvement says otherwise—this hasn't happened yet.... One must still follow the orders of this commander until further notice.

 

[flagtag]

Well there are two things that I see.... 1. He may not have been legally born in the U.S. 2. He still took the Oath of Office for his position. 3. He is the commander in chief until congressional involvement says otherwise—this hasn't happened yet.... One must still follow the orders of this commander until further notice.

We all know what the "Oath of Office" means to a politician, don't we!

Obama knows that he is losing ground with his issues already, I hope he doesn't do something really stupid as a "lame duck" president.

 

[SavageEagle]

Well there are two things that I see.... 1. He may not have been legally born in the U.S. 2. He still took the Oath of Office for his position. 3. He is the commander in chief until congressional involvement says otherwise—this hasn't happened yet.... One must still follow the orders of this commander until further notice.

If a Major tells you to charge into town and shoot innocent people, must you still obey him after you refuse his order?

 

[flagtag]

If a Major tells you to charge into town and shoot innocent people, must you still obey him after you refuse his order?

Hmmm! Obey an illegal order and face a murder charge (at least) or obey the Constitution and all other laws. Hard decision?

 

[jeremy]

If a Major tells you to charge into town and shoot innocent people, must you still obey him after you refuse his order?

Hmmm! Obey an illegal order and face a murder charge (at least) or obey the Constitution and all other laws. Hard decision?

If only choices in life where that simple, easy and black and white...

 

[dburkhead]

If a Major tells you to charge into town and shoot innocent people, must you still obey him after you refuse his order?

If the Major explictly tells you to "shoot innocent people" then you pretty much have a case that it's an illegal order and you are not only permitted but required, by regulation and the UCMJ to disobey.

When I enlisted the oath of enlistment was the same for all the services (and, in fact, recruits from all services were given the oath at the same time):

I, (NAME), 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.

Note the highlighted part. From the first moment one joins the military, limitations are placed on what orders one must obey "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." As one continues in the military, one receives instruction in what does and does not constitute legal orders and what ones legal responsibility is.

When I was in, this was covered somewhat in Basic, and again when I took the first (of what would have been many had I stayed in the military) NCO Leadership course.

I am told by people whose service is much more recent than my own (including a Navy Chief who just retired), that more emphasis is given to this than I remembered. Could be that more emphasis is a feature of recent years, or it could be that more is given at the senior NCO ranks than at my AF e-4 Sergent rank.

It's not always a simple matter of determining just what is and is not "legal."

 

[flagtag]

If only choices in life where that simple, easy and black and white...

Is there something between RIGHT and WRONG? LIFE and DEATH?

Would it really be so easy to follow an illegal order to murder citizens (and face civilian and/or military justice for the crimes committed when "just following orders") rather than face court martial for disobeying that illegal order? (And being vindicated) Which would convey the more severe "punishment" if any?

 

[flagtag]

We all know that murder is not legal. So, if ordered to commit such a crime, one would be expected to question such an order. If one does not, then that person takes the responsibility of the crime and places it directly on his/her sholders, and removes it from the "higher up" that gave the order in the first place.

There is only ONE person responsible for what one does.

The "I was only following orders" doesn't cut it in the real world, no matter what the excuse!

 

[jeremy]

Is there something between RIGHT and WRONG? LIFE and DEATH?

Would it really be so easy to follow an illegal order to murder citizens (and face civilian and/or military justice for the crimes committed when "just following orders") rather than face court martial for disobeying that illegal order? (And being vindicated) Which would convey the more severe "punishment" if any?

Yes there is something between right and wrong. Life is between the two.

As far as illegal orders, you would never hear that order phrased that way. Just because "YOU" believe an order to be illegal does not mean the order is illegal. You can be punished for failure to follow orders.

What the Major done here to me was disgraceful. I am glad to here he has been punished for his actions...

 

[flagtag]

Sounds like an honorable man to me. He chose to not follow blindly into something he has legitimate doubts about. At least he didn't betray his "Oath of Office" in order to take the "easy way out".

I do believe, however, that he should have resigned and he should have given that belief as his official reason for resignation. And then taken it from there.

But, at least other people (who have not considered it) are looking into it on a wider basis. Thanks to him, more are questioning.

 

[jeremy]

The Major volunteered for the tour he was going on. As a volunteer you can opt out of deploying no reason needed. I hope he certainly has farther to fall.

This is why there is no room for politics in the Military.
His actions to you seem brave and pure.
His actions to me seem politically driven, and displays great cowardice and dishonor... A stain to the Nation, and the Military.

Please keep the rot that is politics out of the Military.

 

[jeremy]

Sounds like an honorable man to me. He chose to not follow blindly into something he has legitimate doubts about. At least he didn't betray his "Oath of Office" in order to take the "easy way out"

Easy way out... Please watch how you word things as this in the future. I have never betrayed an Oath. EVER! If you would like to figure out how hard it is to walk a line come step into my boots anytime. But do not slander my Honor.

I do believe, however, that he should have resigned and he should have given that belief as his official reason for resignation. And then taken it from there.

But, at least other people (who have not considered it) are looking into it on a wider basis. Thanks to him, more are questioning.

The Oath of Office for Enlisted Soldiers of the Military.
"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).

The Oath of Office for Commissioned Officers of the Military.
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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 reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

 

[SavageEagle]

Sounds like an honorable man to me. He chose to not follow blindly into something he has legitimate doubts about. At least he didn't betray his "Oath of Office" in order to take the "easy way out".

I do believe, however, that he should have resigned and he should have given that belief as his official reason for resignation. And then taken it from there.

But, at least other people (who have not considered it) are looking into it on a wider basis. Thanks to him, more are questioning.

This is what I was trying to make a point of. Unfortunately the kids wanted to plant our flowers before they died so I didn't have a chance to make my point. Sorry.

My point was if you were ordered to shoot innocent people just because your commanding officer says so, you wouldn't continue to follow his orders after you disobeyed one.

Like Flag said, he should have just resigned and then took issue, but maybe, just maybe that wasn't the point. It brought the issue to the forefront and is making those who didn't before now question obamatard's legitimacy as POTUS.

For that fact alone, I support his move because it bore fruit. WND.com started to and then all of a sudden their billboards were taken down, 1 by 1. This took it a step farther and he did something no one else had the balls to do. Good for him.

 

[flagtag]

I'm just glad I'm not in the military! There is no way I would obey an order that would be illegal, even if it came from the so-called president.

Being a civilian I don't have to worry about that. (I OBEY the "SUPREME LAW of THE LAND - the CONSTITUTION - only!)

 

[Boilers]

Did you know? Obama’s half sister, born in Indonesia, has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth

Besides being the First Sister Maya has a HawaiiaCertification of Live Birth despite be born in Jakarta Indonesia.