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 have a question about the military

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
first here are two oaths as examples
In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

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.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) 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 Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

usmilitary.about.com...

Notice that, the first thing they swear to protect is the constitution of the United States. Not the president, not the government....the most sacred piece of paper in this country.

So how does one view things when the president orders, or commanding officers order them to do harmful or more importantly unconstitutional things? Why are they made to work for the governments interests first? Lets say a major catastrophe happens that sends the nation into panic, why is it "ok" for the government to give them shoot to kill orders on it's own citizens? and how does a member of the military feel about these types of things?

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Hulk Hogan]




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I am retired from the Army National Guard. We are first to defend the constitution, which if in contrast with the government, president or Govenor, the National Guard is supposed to stand their ground, and defend the constitution first. It has not always happened that way, since they are also supposed to follow orders, it is ingrained in them to follow all orders, so most of the time the orders are followed without question. I have seen what that can bring about, and it can be detrimental to society. I Thank GOD it happened prior to my enlisting, and I retired prior to it happening again. The men and women I served with do their best to be upstanding, and forthright in being a citizen soldier. Some however follow blindly to the letter, with out question. I myself always took into consideration the constitution first, and when called for opened discussion in military meetings, and the outcome always came out with the constitution first. Since I have retired I have noticed many more of ht efollower type, than true leader types in the Guard, and that can be dangerous, when they do not utilize their constitutional right and stand up for integrity. So it can become a dismal problem if our military soldiers and officers become so blind as to follow blindly without question. Many soldiers refused to serve anymore after the flag was made to be worn backwards on the right shoulder, many refused to serve NATO, many refused to serve under certain presidents, (republican & democrat), and many refused to fight in IRAQ, but were more than willing to fight in Afghanistan. So when it comes to being a soldier, it all comes down to each individual's personal beliefs, and integrity. I believe I always served honorably for all of us, and I retired along with a few others from an honorable unit. The military is set up to be a professional stance against threats foreign and domestic, but does not always get to be utilized adequately or responsibly due to politics. If I were in charge the Guard would not ever be able to be utilized overseas, it would be the homeland security, which it was originally supposed to be, not a controlled by the regular military group of units, but a serperate entity to be utilized to protect the constitution and the people of the U.S. and the country from all threats foreign and domestic, to include terrorism, and it would continue as a state by state entity, not controlled by the government unless the governor authorized it, and it could only be for a length of time for protection of all the U.S., and could be utilized to fight against any threats, to include a miloitary takeover, or a political or religious takeover, etc.. Also that if the Govenr or President order the Guard to try to do anything unlawful, that the Guard would have the right and responsiblity to not do so, and that they would have the right, and responsiblity to fight against such acts against the people of the U.S. and the constitution. That is what the Guard should be!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Swearing to protect the Constitution comes with it following the orders of the President, as prescribed in Article 2 Section II of the U.S. Constitution:


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


The lawfulness or unlawfulness of orders is determined under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

[edit on 6/20/10 by Ferris.Bueller.II]



 
2

log in

join