It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I, {insert name here}, do solemly swear, ...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
A question has been floating in my mind for several years now, revived many times by hearing references to books like Orwells 1984 and watching movies like "Minority Report" and most recently because of many people talking about total control police states being the next big step they are taking things on the grand chessboard.

I've always been of the opinion that, if a rogue goverment in the western world, were to try and take complete control over its population by having military and police patrol the streets, introducing curfews (sp?), removing and emprisoning all people who speak out against them and such, that the single greatest reason for this attempt failing and leading directly into Civil war would be that the people in the military and police (although I'm sure there are some nasty boogers in there too) would not stand for it and a good share of them would join their families and friends in the fight against tirany.

The Oath enlisted military personel take reads that they are there to protect and defend the US constitution and that they swear to follow the orders of their superiors and the orders of the President of the United States.

A question about this is, if, the president of the United States orders the military to do something thats against the constitution, are they bound by their oath, to follow his orders? Or does the "protect and defend" statement for the Constitution overrule anything the President sais?

What if this president has amended the constitution and laws to make himself legaly allowed to do all this?

The "Military" mostly took this Oath before the law changes, so they are still allowed to protect the constitution in its original form first right?

Next to that question, whats your general take on this?

For who thinks "the president and his people would never want to or need to do this" just take this as a hypothetical scenario.

Anyways, I'm extremely interested in hearing all your takes on this.

Mine as a Police Officer would be to protect and serve "the people" above any law that might state my "duty" as being different from that.




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I thought about this the other day since someone was talking to me on a topic close to this.

Take the first item brought up in the oath, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The first thing you are to defend is the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Foreign enemies are easy, or at least seem easier, to find. The domestic enemy part is what gets me.

What if our gov't goes against the Constitution? All military personnel would be bound to defend the US against the gov't that is suppose to be in control of them. This would make for a very strange situation, but very clear if you read the oath of enlistment. What would happen?

The military would have to remove the gov't, or those in the gov't that are found to be enemies, to ensure the Constitution is upheld. I understand that the elected officials are the ones giving the military the orders, but this situation would require the Constitution to be defended by the military. This would happen no matter what the President says since he isn't the first item on the oath that is to be defended. Maybe i'm reading it wrong, but you always put items in order of importance, especially on something as important as an oath of enlistment.

As long as the gov't goes about things in the proper way the military would not go after them. If they make illegal changes to the Constitution there would be a clear case for military intervention since they would become domestic enemies of the Constitution.

The military can't be used on US soil for domestic law enforcement according to the Possi Comitatus Act of 1878, something the current administration is looking at carefully btw. But if there were to be a domestic enemy acting against the Constitution the military would have to act. Law enforcement would be handled by our military during any type of engagement in order for the military to keep control of the area of responsibility(AOR), this being the US capitol or other areas that are in question. Depending on the operation's timeframe the military would keep control.

This is something that I was thinking about lately. If the Constitution were to be put aside for some reason, like Congress voting for this to happen and the President approving it, would that make every single military enlistment contract null and void? When you add or take away from a contract you are voiding that contract, right?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I'm ex-Army, just so ya'll know.
The Oath respects Legal orders. Unless that has changed, I would think that being ordered to attack or imprison civilians "just because" would be considered illegal.
I sure hope so.

Lex



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   


Take the first item brought up in the oath, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The first thing you are to defend is the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Foreign enemies are easy, or at least seem easier, to find. The domestic enemy part is what gets me.


Kinda depends on who is empowered to define who the domestic enemy is no?

Is it the goverments definition of domestic enemy or the people's definition of domestic enemy that counts?

Interpretation is a cage, so in the end, it'll come down to what the soldiers and policemen think is the right thing to do and we'll see sides being taken.

Civil war is assured in almost all scenarios it seems, unless the goverment gets so far as to let the people and military think its ok and right to be herded and controlled.

Only way I see they can do this though is massive medical cataclysm in the form of a plague, biowarfare problems or something.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
a good share of them would join their families and friends in the fight against tirany.


I agree, You may have signed on that dotted line to the army, but once you start attacking your fellow citizens I cant see many, if any following orders..

which is why a police state cant work in my opinion.

you care about your family before your care about your country.

It sticks in my mind in the fact that if it were just, and the course of action that hepled the 'people' then the people would follow regardless.
you wouldnt have to order them.
I stick this theory to the Iraq war too.

A police state will never come to be here.

If the US president ordered for all dis-approvers to be locked up in thes ficticous camps people rant about... it wont happen.

Mass numbers will always win over curropt power.

If this president really turned things that bad, 20 thousand people charging at the whitehouse will not be beaten.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
I'm ex-Army, just so ya'll know.
The Oath respects Legal orders. Unless that has changed, I would think that being ordered to attack or imprison civilians "just because" would be considered illegal.
I sure hope so.

Lex


I think the UK one (it WAS a long time ago) specifically says 'legal orders' - ie you cannot be ordered to break the Geneva Convention etc and can refuse an illegal order without breaking the oath.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Lexion nailed it; "lawful" is the key part of following orders. If the orders weren't lawful, yeah lots of people might go along with it just because they'd follow orders, but the majority wouldn't do it. Given the sheer numbers of soldiers and combat vehicles that would assault any administration ordering an unlawful police state, I doubt it would even be attempted.

thematrix's scenarious of this is probably the most sound: an outside factor, like plague or some medical issue, would be key.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I'm still under my obligation of service, and nothing has changed, in those regards.
Many things have changed since I was first in, and it is going to always change in certain apsects.

The traditions are the same and "The Army keeps rolling along...", but what else is new. Guess we only wait and see.

NJ Mooch

I have mentioned that many times on ATS, and am about ready to start linking to the many threads in which I have typed such. No big deal though, I don't mind discussing it with new members, so long as it is new members and not the same member over again, like "100 first ATS posts" or some thing....


Touchy subject, another potental "civil revolution" situation.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Advisor,
Thanks for your service. As you, I consider myself still a patriot, and still carry my classification. Rather proud of both.

Great to hear that the "core" values and traditions are still there.
May you carry on for years to come.
/salute

Lex



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I would still call myself an american patriot too if I hadn't been informed by the US Embassy that my US Citizenship was under review!

So depending on how this pans out, I'll either be another patrioting and concerned US Citizen or I'll be portraid as a medling Euro ...

Be assured though, I love both my countries and will fight to the end to preserve my double nationality!

Also, I sure hope that whats been said so far in this thread pans out to be the general concensus between enlisted and law enforcement personel. If things go as far as this, its their standpoint that will either save or enslave us all.

[edit on 11/10/06 by thematrix]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Will not be any, will not be ANY, enslavement!


That all people from every nation can be sure of, the choice is ours to make, you just have to decide for your self.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thematrix
 


Over 80% of Americans believe the federal government is corrupt, untrustworthy, destructive of the Constitution and unaccountable to the people. Perhaps there is a remedy:

The Oaths to preserve and protect or to support and defend the US Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” are not about enemies in general, but about enemies to the Constitution specifically. (If in doubt, please review it again.)

What possible entity is powerful enough to threaten the US Constitution but its guardians, and those in power or position of influence (elected or not) whose efforts circumvent, suspend, or systematically destroy it. These are the domestic enemies in the Oath to be fully exposed, prosecuted, and defeated (regardless of position or status, past or present).

They will deny their guilt, attempt to defuse our efforts, or claim they have new laws and directives, etc., that make them immune to investigation or that make their anti-constitution laws legal. It is deception and manipulation to propose that their new laws are superior to the Supreme Law of the Land. Investigate anyway, as none are exempt or above the law, nor indeed can be.

Thousands of government actions, at many levels, suggest threats to or termination of our rights and sovereignties. Being thereby unconstitutional, they must be declared null, void, and unenforceable.

An enemy of the Constitution is the enemy of every American. Only by an aggressive purging of domestic enemies can our Constitutional Republic be restored and liberty preserved for our posterity. Those who resist us in this effort are aiding and abetting a national enemy.
Let the purging begin!


"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
-- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961


We stand in danger of losing all our liberties. If lovers of freedom act now, we can restore the Constitution peaceably. But once lost, only blood will bring it back, if by then it is not too late.
-- Paraphrasing US Ambassador and Statesman J. Reuben Clark, Jr.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
We take the oath to follow the lawful orders of the president and the officers appointed over us when we join the military. I remember the oath that I took back in 1977 when I joined the Army. And the oath is the same, no matter which branch of the service you join, even the National Guard. Whether the enlisted personnel like me would refuse to follow an unlawful order or not is open to interpretation, and would necessarily have to depend on the moral fiber and character of the Armed Forces members themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join