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.
If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath?
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Reigning
If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath?
Because it's the US military member's family and friends that the Government are labelling "terrorists"...
It would take UN troops to go after these "threats" and I'm quite certain the US military will not have one little bit of it.
Rightfully so.
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...
Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Reigning
It's been changed a tad.
originally posted by: Reigning
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...
Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.
I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?
Are their any current domestic enemies of the US Constituion?
If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Reigning
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...
Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.
I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?
Just out of curiosity ... what would you like to see "done" against the three million or so odd Americans that are Muslim?
If you concur that Islam is an "enemy of the Constitution" ... do you have a plan in mind?
originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Reigning
It means our military will defend our nation, and the constitution that governs it, against any enemy force. And that includes domestic enemy force...an attempted coup or something would be an example of a domestic threat to the Constitution.
I'm puzzled by this though...very odd questions:
Are their any current domestic enemies of the US Constituion?
If so, why has the US military not acted in accordance of their oath?
If there were a domestic enemy threat that required a military show of force in this country right now, the whole world would probably know it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you know something you'd like to share with the rest of us?
If you are an American citizen living in this country, you are able to enjoy that way of life as a direct result of our military acting in accordance with their oath. They take it very seriously.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Reigning
It's been changed a tad.
originally posted by: Reigning
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Reigning
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...
Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.
I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?
Just out of curiosity ... what would you like to see "done" against the three million or so odd Americans that are Muslim?
If you concur that Islam is an "enemy of the Constitution" ... do you have a plan in mind?
Are you saying stoning a woman for unsubstantiated claims of adultery is not cruel or unusual, that it is not common practice of sharia law to stone a woman for adultery, that Muslims don't advocate sharia law, or that taking action against people who advocate sharia law would be too mean?
originally posted by: tigertatzen
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Reigning
It's been changed a tad.
Well, that's kind of disturbing actually. Instead of swearing allegiance to the Constitution, they now swear it to the POTUS. And the wording, sort of blurs the lines a bit now regarding whom exactly can be considered an enemy. If I were the cynical type, I might see that language as a doorway to plausible deniability. That is very interesting indeed.
Will soldiers and officers be required to pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the president instead of the Constitution as this news report suggests?
FULL ANSWER: It’s not true that President Barack Obama is changing the oath for military officers. The "news article" being circulated is satire. In fact, this e-mail is one of the easiest we’ve ever debunked. Simply clicking on the link that is helpfully provided at the end of the e-mail (at least in some versions) brings up the article, which was initially posted at Jumping in Pools, a political humor site. But the e-mail omits the following note:
NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece. While you’re here, read other articles, like Obama going on the quarter, how he’s genetically superior, and how he took down Blago.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Reigning
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Reigning
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
For starters...
Islam, sharia law and those who advocate for it's implimentation are enemies of the constitution.
I concur, I believe these are obvious enemies. But as you said that identification is just the start, why has nothing else been done? Like isn't that the whole point of this military thing?
Just out of curiosity ... what would you like to see "done" against the three million or so odd Americans that are Muslim?
If you concur that Islam is an "enemy of the Constitution" ... do you have a plan in mind?
Are you saying stoning a woman for unsubstantiated claims of adultery is not cruel or unusual, that it is not common practice of sharia law to stone a woman for adultery, that Muslims don't advocate sharia law, or that taking action against people who advocate sharia law would be too mean?
Did I say that? No.
Why don't you note the last time a woman was stoned to death by American Muslims ...
And why don't you answer the question ... what do you want to do to these American Muslims you think are your enemy?
(BTW, may want to read Amendment I before you answer ... )
"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).
"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 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 upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)