Okay, I have some questions for either Longermonger or catnipdipper. Put away your paranoia these are fairly simple questions and don't lead you to anything.
1. Do you understand the meaning of the word "tyrant"?
2. Do you believe it is possible for a US president to become a tyrant?
3. Do you follow the philosophy of St. Augustine who said that everyone should bear up under all indignities and offenses from your leaders?
4. Do you think you have a breaking point where you would resist the elected government?
5. What is that breaking point (remember how you felt under G W Bush)?
6. Do understand the difference between a "lawful" and "unlawful" order?
7. Do you think a service person should follow all orders whether lawful or not?
8. If a president has usurped their constitutional authority and is issuing unlawful orders does the service person have the right to refuse those orders?
9. Does a service person have the right to protect people or a state that is exercising a constitutional right against a government that has violated the constitution?
10. Do you think the founding fathers were traitors to the English crown?
- john_galt
- 07-07-2010, 01:07 AM
- dirty dog
- 07-07-2010, 06:15 AM
Hey guys lets get back on topic or start another thread. This one is going to get closed because its heading for an argument.
- Guest052813-01
- 07-07-2010, 06:39 AM
Okay, I have some questions for either Longermonger or catnipdipper. Put away your paranoia these are fairly simple questions and don't lead you to anything.A tyrant is (per dictionary.com):
1. Do you understand the meaning of the word "tyrant"?
2. Do you believe it is possible for a US president to become a tyrant?
3. Do you follow the philosophy of St. Augustine who said that everyone should bear up under all indignities and offenses from your leaders?
4. Do you think you have a breaking point where you would resist the elected government?
5. What is that breaking point (remember how you felt under G W Bush)?
6. Do understand the difference between a "lawful" and "unlawful" order?
7. Do you think a service person should follow all orders whether lawful or not?
8. If a president has usurped their constitutional authority and is issuing unlawful orders does the service person have the right to refuse those orders?
9. Does a service person have the right to protect people or a state that is exercising a constitutional right against a government that has violated the constitution?
10. Do you think the founding fathers were traitors to the English crown? Originally Posted by john_galt
1) a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly;
2) any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically;
3) a tyrannical or compulsory influence
4) an absolute ruler, esp., one in ancient Greece or Sicily.
It is possible for a US President to become a tyrant if he has the support of the legislative branch and has the propaganda machine in his favor. Support or dissent of the judicial branch means little because, regardless of the rulings of the judicial branch, the executive branch has the power of enforcement and can choose not to enforce rulings of the judicial branch.
A serviceman in any branch of the military has the duty and obligation to follow any lawful order issued by any superior. The serviceman may choose to ignore or disobey any unlawful order and hope that he can prove the order was unlawful or suffer the consequences. A lawful order may be considered immoral in the eyes of the serviceman, but he will have to justify those reasons and, even if he proves the immorallity of the order, he will probably be found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and be penalized (long prison term or firing squad).
In the eyes of the British people and the British sovereign, the signers of the Declaration of Independence and those who supported independence were traitors to the British crown and were treasonous in their acts to secede from Great Britain. Since they won the war for independence, they were no longer traitors, but patriots in the minds of the American public and trading partners in the eyes of the British; after all, past sins are forgiven if your former enemies can become valuable trading partners (i.e., "follow the money").
- lacrew_2000
- 07-07-2010, 07:44 AM
"You left out the part of the induction oath where the inductee swears to obey the orders of the President of the United States and all officers appointed over him."
I have taken the oath we are discussing...and I have sat through dozens of hours of discussion of what it means, philosophical discussions led by senior officers (whose names you might recognize from the news), in a classroom setting, at the United States Military Academy. They spent 4 years grooming us to be officers...and yes indeed, we did have extensive discussions about what our duty was, and who it was to.
Its an in-depth subject...and probably not suited for the smash and dash nature of postings on this board.
Our officer corps takes very seriously the notion of civilian control over the military. However, they are very sensitive to the notion that we cannot use our military against our own people (incidentally, Ft Hood and General Clark are often brought up in this discussion, concerning Waco). They are also very sensitive to the fact that they have a duty and responsibility that supercedes one man (the president). The extreme example given usually deals with a theoretical president who has literally gone mad...would we still follow his orders? The Nuremberg trials are usually brought up next....and officer absolutely cannot get away with merely 'following orders'...he still has a moral responsibility in every situation.
Like I said, its a complicated issue not suited for this board...but please don't lecture me on the oath I took. You've flushed out a piece of identifying information...I was an officer, I happened to graduate from West Point. So do alot of other people, so I'm not bragging about it....but trust me, I know all about the oath.
I have taken the oath we are discussing...and I have sat through dozens of hours of discussion of what it means, philosophical discussions led by senior officers (whose names you might recognize from the news), in a classroom setting, at the United States Military Academy. They spent 4 years grooming us to be officers...and yes indeed, we did have extensive discussions about what our duty was, and who it was to.
Its an in-depth subject...and probably not suited for the smash and dash nature of postings on this board.
Our officer corps takes very seriously the notion of civilian control over the military. However, they are very sensitive to the notion that we cannot use our military against our own people (incidentally, Ft Hood and General Clark are often brought up in this discussion, concerning Waco). They are also very sensitive to the fact that they have a duty and responsibility that supercedes one man (the president). The extreme example given usually deals with a theoretical president who has literally gone mad...would we still follow his orders? The Nuremberg trials are usually brought up next....and officer absolutely cannot get away with merely 'following orders'...he still has a moral responsibility in every situation.
Like I said, its a complicated issue not suited for this board...but please don't lecture me on the oath I took. You've flushed out a piece of identifying information...I was an officer, I happened to graduate from West Point. So do alot of other people, so I'm not bragging about it....but trust me, I know all about the oath.
- kcbigpapa
- 07-07-2010, 08:52 AM
- lacrew_2000
- 07-07-2010, 09:12 AM
Officer Oath to be in Regular Army:
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and 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; 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
Note there is no mention of obedience to the president. Note the part about defending the constitution from 'domestic' enemies. Its important.
Now Longer is citing the NG oath. The NG oath does mention obedience to the GOVERNOR and the president. It seems that Longer conveniently forgot to add that nugget to his first post....since the topic is breaking away from the union, I think its important to note that guardsmen have equal responsibility to the governor and president...not just the president. The whole point of the dicussion deals with a situation in which the governor of a state disagrees with the president. Where would a guardsman's loyalties lie? Since he is sworn to obey both, it really becomes a moot point...the controlling issue being whether or not he is defending the constitution. If the officer were only sworn to the president, Longer would have a point...but being sworn to leaders on both side of a succession fight, it is selective to only mention his oath to the president.
And why would the statement about obeying orders of presidents and governors even be in the oath? It goes both ways. It makes clear that a president cannot unilaterally take over a state NG...while also making clear that a NG officer has a duty to the nation, not just his state. If the two are in conflict, he has a decision to make.
A regular army officer has a much simpler decision to make: Am I defending the constitution?....against All enemies...including Domestic enemies? While an officer knows he is subordinate to civilain leadership, he also knows that can never use that as an excuse for not defending the constitution.
Anyway, if Longer wants to school me on whats in the NG oath, he should include both the loyalty to the president and governor...not just cherry pick loyalty to the president...and leave out the part about defending the constitution.
This is why I said this is a hard topic to discuss on this board. It is a very complex issue, and people start hyperventilating when they find the one portion of the oath that they key in on. There very well could be a situation in which an officer is torn, and will have to violate one portion of the oath in order to fulfill another part of it. He has to use Judgement. Our military, btw, prides itself on having officers with the lattitude to use judgement, much more so than in other militaries. The discussion is hard to have in 100 word crash and dash postings.
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and 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; 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
Note there is no mention of obedience to the president. Note the part about defending the constitution from 'domestic' enemies. Its important.
Now Longer is citing the NG oath. The NG oath does mention obedience to the GOVERNOR and the president. It seems that Longer conveniently forgot to add that nugget to his first post....since the topic is breaking away from the union, I think its important to note that guardsmen have equal responsibility to the governor and president...not just the president. The whole point of the dicussion deals with a situation in which the governor of a state disagrees with the president. Where would a guardsman's loyalties lie? Since he is sworn to obey both, it really becomes a moot point...the controlling issue being whether or not he is defending the constitution. If the officer were only sworn to the president, Longer would have a point...but being sworn to leaders on both side of a succession fight, it is selective to only mention his oath to the president.
And why would the statement about obeying orders of presidents and governors even be in the oath? It goes both ways. It makes clear that a president cannot unilaterally take over a state NG...while also making clear that a NG officer has a duty to the nation, not just his state. If the two are in conflict, he has a decision to make.
A regular army officer has a much simpler decision to make: Am I defending the constitution?....against All enemies...including Domestic enemies? While an officer knows he is subordinate to civilain leadership, he also knows that can never use that as an excuse for not defending the constitution.
Anyway, if Longer wants to school me on whats in the NG oath, he should include both the loyalty to the president and governor...not just cherry pick loyalty to the president...and leave out the part about defending the constitution.
This is why I said this is a hard topic to discuss on this board. It is a very complex issue, and people start hyperventilating when they find the one portion of the oath that they key in on. There very well could be a situation in which an officer is torn, and will have to violate one portion of the oath in order to fulfill another part of it. He has to use Judgement. Our military, btw, prides itself on having officers with the lattitude to use judgement, much more so than in other militaries. The discussion is hard to have in 100 word crash and dash postings.
- john_galt
- 07-07-2010, 11:03 AM
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.
The enlisted oath (which I am very familiar with) for US servicemen. LM will rejoice that it says "I will obey the orders of the Potus and the orders of the officer appointed over me" but the next part is vitally important "according to the regulations and the UCMJ". This is where lawful orders come from. We had classes every year to understand what an unlawful order was and wasn't. Essentially it came down to the constitution for the big questions and our judgement for the smaller questions. Before you jump on that last, judgement involves our understanding of the situation. If an officer tells us to blow up a building with shell fire then we understand that he has a good reason for doing so. If that same officer tells us to blow up a building that we KNOW is full of children and civilians then there is a problem. Legally, we are required to point out that the building is full of noncombatants and that to kill them could be viewed as a war crime. If the officer relents then all is well though he or she could bring up charges of insubordination or failure to obey orders. It get to be very tense if the officer repeats the original order... now it is up to the individual as to what is right or wrong. They can asked to be relieved, or they can flat refuse to follow those orders. There would likely be a courts martial and the individual can explain his or her actions. A court may decide that the individual is guilty of failing to obey an order but in the aftermath decline to mete out punishment. I could illustrate several different possibles but this is a difficult topic to pin down without specific circumstances.
For those who have never put on the uniform, we are not automatons, we do not follow orders blindling, nor are we required to, we are people, for the most part Americans just like those we protect. Read about what people like Lee, Jackson, Beauregard went through to come to their decisions to serve their country (that is the way they described it) of Virginia. If the south had won the war then they would be regarded as heros and patriots. The hardest part about being a historian is trying to remove oneself from a contemporary mindset when thinking about motivations of historical figures.
The enlisted oath (which I am very familiar with) for US servicemen. LM will rejoice that it says "I will obey the orders of the Potus and the orders of the officer appointed over me" but the next part is vitally important "according to the regulations and the UCMJ". This is where lawful orders come from. We had classes every year to understand what an unlawful order was and wasn't. Essentially it came down to the constitution for the big questions and our judgement for the smaller questions. Before you jump on that last, judgement involves our understanding of the situation. If an officer tells us to blow up a building with shell fire then we understand that he has a good reason for doing so. If that same officer tells us to blow up a building that we KNOW is full of children and civilians then there is a problem. Legally, we are required to point out that the building is full of noncombatants and that to kill them could be viewed as a war crime. If the officer relents then all is well though he or she could bring up charges of insubordination or failure to obey orders. It get to be very tense if the officer repeats the original order... now it is up to the individual as to what is right or wrong. They can asked to be relieved, or they can flat refuse to follow those orders. There would likely be a courts martial and the individual can explain his or her actions. A court may decide that the individual is guilty of failing to obey an order but in the aftermath decline to mete out punishment. I could illustrate several different possibles but this is a difficult topic to pin down without specific circumstances.
For those who have never put on the uniform, we are not automatons, we do not follow orders blindling, nor are we required to, we are people, for the most part Americans just like those we protect. Read about what people like Lee, Jackson, Beauregard went through to come to their decisions to serve their country (that is the way they described it) of Virginia. If the south had won the war then they would be regarded as heros and patriots. The hardest part about being a historian is trying to remove oneself from a contemporary mindset when thinking about motivations of historical figures.
- lacrew_2000
- 07-07-2010, 11:37 AM
Good to see the enlisted perspective. Also, I suddenly realized that Longer's quote:
"You left out the part of the induction oath where the inductee swears to obey the orders of the President of the United States and all officers appointed over him"
Is actually from the enlistment oath...not actually part of the officer oath I brought up at all. Google can be a bitch sometimes, can't it? The point about obeying orders of 'all officers appointed over him' is the giveaway. Neither officer oath contains that.
Back to the topic of seccession. My opinion is still that a 'soft' seccession has already started in some ways. California openly defies federal drug law, Chicago's reaction to having their gun law struck down by the SC was to immediately pass a new one, Texas is not enforcing EPA air standards, Montana is flouting federal gun laws, the list goes on.
We are about to see the federal government try to re-assert their authority in a suit against Arizona. This actually will open the door for the courts to make a landmark determination on states rights vs federal rights...it will be very interesting.
I think its a nice fantasy that Texas would leave the union, and we went off on a tangent with the military, when border security was brought up...but yes, I think they could defend their border, and would not get 'invaded' by Mexico. Would Texas do it? Well, all during the Bush years, Texas sucked on the federal government tit...so they might not be as independent as they like to think of themselves...but its interesting to consider (except for the treason accusations).....but the treason accusations are informative and worth discussing as well: who are we 'patriotic to'? The nation? The government? The president? The constitution? I think the answer is very simple. Apparently others don't.
"You left out the part of the induction oath where the inductee swears to obey the orders of the President of the United States and all officers appointed over him"
Is actually from the enlistment oath...not actually part of the officer oath I brought up at all. Google can be a bitch sometimes, can't it? The point about obeying orders of 'all officers appointed over him' is the giveaway. Neither officer oath contains that.
Back to the topic of seccession. My opinion is still that a 'soft' seccession has already started in some ways. California openly defies federal drug law, Chicago's reaction to having their gun law struck down by the SC was to immediately pass a new one, Texas is not enforcing EPA air standards, Montana is flouting federal gun laws, the list goes on.
We are about to see the federal government try to re-assert their authority in a suit against Arizona. This actually will open the door for the courts to make a landmark determination on states rights vs federal rights...it will be very interesting.
I think its a nice fantasy that Texas would leave the union, and we went off on a tangent with the military, when border security was brought up...but yes, I think they could defend their border, and would not get 'invaded' by Mexico. Would Texas do it? Well, all during the Bush years, Texas sucked on the federal government tit...so they might not be as independent as they like to think of themselves...but its interesting to consider (except for the treason accusations).....but the treason accusations are informative and worth discussing as well: who are we 'patriotic to'? The nation? The government? The president? The constitution? I think the answer is very simple. Apparently others don't.