Which oath?

Which oath should be kept?

  • 1

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • 2

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Both

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
1. I, (state your name) do solemely 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; 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.

2. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
 
I'd be tempted to vote for both, but I think a citizen who attacks a military installation should be brought to justice under a military tribunal rather than a civil court.
 
I'd be tempted to vote for both, but I think a citizen who attacks a military installation should be brought to justice under a military tribunal rather than a civil court.

Careful, lil' Yurtie says anyone responding to my post is my troll. Then he'll accuse you of "stalking" him. :lol:
 
I'd be tempted to vote for both, but I think a citizen who attacks a military installation should be brought to justice under a military tribunal rather than a civil court.

You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Hand selected people solely from the military are not your peers.
 
You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Hand selected people solely from the military are not your peers.
Actually the whole "jury of your peers" is a misnomer. You actually have a right to a trial of "a jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been commited".
 
Well, going off of Billy's earlier post, seeing as how the district in which they shall have committed the crime is a military district, I disrespectfully disagree with this concept.
Technically it's a federal district, not a military one. All military bases are property of the federal government.
 
See the Daily Dumbass Report, or any of STY's rants.

The nutcases actually have a website - strange, since they claim the government is conspiring to entrap them at every turn.

The government's actions (mostly inaction) during Katrina concerned me, as did the Patriot Act, posse comitatus, and warrantless wiretapping.

The problem I have is the dead silence from these self-proclaimed Constitution defenders during the Bush years.
 
Being that the use of the military to disarm United States citizens is unconstitutional, using military personnel to conduct ANY search and seizure against U.S. persons, let alone S&S w/o warrant is unconstitutional, use of the military in a law enforcement role is illegal, etc. etc. etc., and being the UCMJ specifies that a soldier is not bound to obey illegal orders - in fact they are bound to NOT obey known illegal orders (do try to remember, the "just obeying orders" defense is not considered legitimate when it comes to actions taken by military personnel), then the ideals of the second "oath" are covered automatically by the first.
 
Members of the armed services have the right to refuse illegal and/or immoral orders - this was established most notably at Nuremberg.

That this refusal might also entail disciplinary action does not excuse the service member - in that situation, they are expected to refuse the order, be subject to disciplinary action, and trust that in the end, moral authority will be restored and their actions honored.

When you make a commitment, you honor the commitment, even if it becomes inconvenient or onerous.

The Oaf Keepers get it wrong.
 
Back
Top