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.

 

Military Oath of Allegiance

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Military Oath of Allegiance.

I was watching a program about veterans going back to Vietnam earlier.

A marine said he took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America when he joined the military service.

My question is ......... Is the oath still the same? Do our military personal pledge to protect the constitution.

If the oath is still the same I can not help but wonder what our service men would do if faced with complete disregard of our Bill of Rights and the constitution by our government.

Can someone enlighten me about this?



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Part of the oath has to do with protecting the country from enemies both foreign and domestic... here are a couple sites for your perusal...

www.history.army.mil...

and current - usmilitary.about.com...

hope that helps



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
The problem is, all these "charges" people have come up with against President Bush regarding military activity have not been proven unconstitutional. If a military member refuses an order on the grounds of being unconstitutional, they'd better have a good case to back themselves up. Now, in the near future we'll be up against President elect Obama's beliefs to trample on Freedom of Speech through the Fairness Doctrine, Freedom To Bear Arms through gun control, and I'm sure there's one against socialistic redistribution of wealth through extreme federal taxation and welfare programs.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Grock
 
Thank you.

I'm going to check those sites out right now.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
There are a few threads about this kind of subject, and from what I have seen military members post it goes something like this.

Most military personnel are aware of the Nuremberg trials, and thanks to these trials a precedent was established where any soldier who commits a crime, even if that soldier is just following an order, can be prosecuted for that crime.

Besides that, most soldiers joined the military to serve their country and it's citizens, and will uphold that oath to defend the constitution and the citizens of their country.

Faced with a complete disregard of our Bill of Rights and The Constitution by our government, most of them would "put the crazies back in the box" as Admiral William J. Fallon said.

The real question is, where is that line drawn where a "complete disregard" takes place?

[edit on 14-11-2008 by ashamedamerican]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Nice quote Ashamedamerican, loving the colors.


Now, as for the oath of enlistment, yes it is the same one which has been used for a long time. Many of us have sworn to it more than once, and personally I take it very seriously, especially the order of which I have sworn. Notice the precedence it has been written in;

"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"

The defence of the Constitution is first, it is our primary concern, as is how I interpret said oath.

Yes, lawful orders should be followed, and common sence can differentiate the difference. Any one with a conscience will know a unlawful vs lawful order.

About that second question of your about "disregard of our Bill of Rights and the constitution by our government" there are a couple threads pertaining to exactly that.

Simply put though, the government is being watched.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Things like this are exactly why anyone with anti-American agendas who take office are walking on thin ice. I am personally wondering how long we've had these oaths of course.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I wonder how long it will take for them to change it?.........And I wonder what Obama's Youth Force will adhere to, I'm sure it will be a different oath.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe
 


Good question, the oath we know today is different from the original sworn by the first soldiers.
See third paragraph-
The first oath

So in one form or another, the oath of enlistment has existed since the first standing US military.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


Reading part of the Oath (old one) brings me to thinking about the NWO stuff there is here on ATS all of the time. Particularly the items about the international banks being connected with the royalty of England.



and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents;



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
"and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents;"
Change "the third" to Bush, and that's very ominous, almost Nostradamus prediction material.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
i am bringing this subject back to life. it's important.

there was a change in the military oath that took place. the most important point that was taken out was to defend the united states of america. they left in the part to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america.

this is alarming and i'm wondering why there has been little mention of this.

the constitution of the united states of america is almost in shreds. we do not know all the hidden directives and orders that override our constitution.

5 May 1950
81st Cong., 2d sess.,
chap. 169 (Public
Law 506)
Enlisted Oath: I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that I will serve them
honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; 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.
This statute was the first post–World War II legislation on the oath,
establishing the Uniform Code of Military Justice to unify, consolidate, revise,
and codify the Articles of War, the Articles of Government of the Navy, and the
Disciplinary Laws of the Coast Guard. Section 8 identified a standard oath for all
enlisted personnel.
***THIS WAS CHANGED TO THE FOLLOWING:


5 October 1962
87th Cong., 2d sess.
(Public Law 87-751)
Enlisted Oath: 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.

This legislation was enacted to make the
enlisted oath more consistent with the officer oath, using the phrase “support and
defend the Constitution” and adding “So help me God” at the end. This was the last
legislative change to the wording of either oath. Subsequent legislation on the
oath addressed administrative issues.


i was listening to admiral mullen's speech to the graduating class. he spoke of their duties... not one time did he mention their duty to the united states of america. not once! i've already sent an email requesting clarification on why the united states was not mentioned. there is a video on this page and other locations to contact admiral mullen.

watch and read it for yourselves. no mention of God and Country.
www.dodlive.mil...

"I had the honor today of addressing the graduating class of 2010 from the United States Air Force Academy. They and a select group of college graduates throughout the country are receiving a diploma this month and then raising their hand to defend our nation. As I fly back home to Washington now, it is to these young men and women entering our military that I wish to impart some of the same time-tested advice I gave our newest Air Force officers.

In a word, it’s about duty.

Your first duty is to learn your jobs, and learn them well. Know them cold. Know them better than your peers, better even than your superiors. Stay ahead of the technology and the trends, because you are going to be on the leading edge of that change.

You are going to be responsible for making sure those you command and those you serve are informed and able to make the best decisions they can, often with little or no notice. You can’t do that if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Become an expert. That is the most meaningful way a junior officer can contribute to the mission.

Your second duty is to lead. And there’s a lot that goes into that, I know. Let me just tell you a little of what it means to me. It means loyalty. And loyalty must be demonstrated to seniors, peers, and subordinates alike. It must never be blind. Few things are more important to an organization than people who have the moral courage to question the direction in which the organization is headed and then the strength of character to support whatever final decisions are made.

Leadership also requires integrity. You may, at times, prove better than your word, but you will rarely prove better than your actions. The high standards by which you measure your own personal behavior and that of others, say more about you and your potential than any statements you make or guidance you give. You should strive to conduct yourself always in such a manner that it can never be said that you demanded less of yourself or of the men and women in your charge than that which is expected of you by your families or your countrymen.

A leader today must likewise think creatively. She should be able to place herself outside the problems immediately before her and look at them from a fresh perspective. While great decisions can be made in the heat of battle, great ideas are usually born in the ease of quiet. You must find the quiet to let your imaginations soar.

And that brings me to your final duty — to listen. You must listen to yourselves, to your instincts. You must also prove capable of listening to others, of trying to see problems through the perspectives of our allies, our partners, and our friends all over the world. No one military, no one nation, can do it alone anymore. It’s why I sat cross-legged in a shura with tribal elders in Afghanistan. It’s why our troops in that war-torn country are working so hard to speak the language and understand the culture.

Finally, remember that graduation and commissioning represent only the end of the beginning of your education. The world is now your classroom. Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines are now your teachers. They and their families are the best they’ve ever been: talented, eager, and proud of what they are doing.

Take full advantage of their knowledge to improve yours. Show them your loyalty, and they will show you theirs. Demonstrate integrity in everything you do, and they will respect you. You represent the values they have — throughout our history — struggled to defend. Only by earning the support of those you lead can you ever truly hope to become a leader yourself.

Only by doing your duty — straight and true — can you hope to prove worthy of the trust this nation places in you today.

Best of luck to you all, God bless and congratulations.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
June 4, 2007
Cheney Misstates Military Oath


David R. Henderson
Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:

"On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your vow, that is the business you're in."

Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in the U.S. Army take:

"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."

Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor, isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes, it is interesting.

Actually, more than just the history majors should have noticed it. All of the graduating cadets should have noticed because, after all, what good is an oath if you don't remember it?

Did Mr. Cheney simply make a casual mistake? It's possible. But in the rest of his speech, he described life at West Point in punctilious detail. He mentioned Thayer Gate, R-Day, and Lake Frederick, all things that are known to West Pointers and all evidence of a well-staffed speech. I can say confidently, based on my time in the White House as a senior economist under Ronald Reagan, that speeches by the president and the vice president are carefully checked for the tiniest of details. That makes it hard to believe that someone didn't point out what the oath actually says. And, if someone did, then it would appear that Mr. Cheney preferred to have it his way and state his ersatz oath.

Why would he do that? I don't know, but here's my best guess. The Bush administration has landed a few body blows on the U.S. Constitution. Let me give two significant examples. First, by signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in 2002, President Bush violated the First Amendment, which says that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." In his signing statement, President Bush even admitted, in Washington-speak, that the law violated the Constitution. Which means, by the way, that President Bush knowingly violated the oath he took "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Bush administration's second major violation of the Constitution was its restriction of habeas corpus, which, according to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, "shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." By signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, President Bush took away this protection that has existed in some form in many countries since the Magna Carta of 1215. Robert Levy, a legal scholar whose work I generally respect highly, has argued that the law does not end habeas corpus for U.S. citizens; I'm not informed enough to know. But I do know that it ends habeas corpus for non-citizens, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that the protections from government are extended only to U.S. citizens.

I do not claim the above two examples to be the Bush administration's only violations of the U.S. Constitution. But they are two very important ones. Although the Supreme Court, the president, and the Congress thumbed their collective noses decades ago at the Constitution's protection of economic freedom, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech has been much more respected. McCain-Feingold, therefore, is a huge negative step. So also with the suspension of habeas corpus, even if this suspension applies only to non-citizens.

Vice President Cheney might have had another motive for substituting "United States" for "Constitution of the United States" in his version of the oath. Michael Roston has highlighted Mr. Cheney's pointing out that although U.S. military officers must follow the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, their enemies don't have those same "delicate sensibilities" when they "wage attacks or take captives." Mr. Roston argues that Cheney was attacking the Geneva Conventions. I'm not so sure, although I think a good case can be made for Mr. Roston's conclusion. But whatever Mr. Cheney's view on the Geneva Conventions, he did implicitly attack or, at a minimum, slight the U.S. Constitution. Should one of the graduating cadets, upon taking the oath, have taken it seriously by pointing out Mr. Cheney's mistake?

Copyright © 2007 by David R. Henderson. Requests for permission to reprint should be directed to the author or Antiwar.com.

www.scribd.com...



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
here is a situation that happened regarding a military officer and his allegience to either the us constitution or nato. he was confused on what to do:

"....The Oath’s Message Some people may think that the focus on the oath and our founding fathers is merely patriotic, feel-good rhetoric and may question the significance of the oath in today’s environment.16 However, during Operation Allied Force, Gen Wesley Clark encountered a dilemma that very much involved the oath. As combatant commander of US European Command, he had allegiance to the United States. But he also served as supreme allied commander, Europe, with responsibility to the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In his book Waging Modern War, General Clark alludes to his dilemma. Who should have priority- the United States or NATO?

Upon initiating the air campaign, Clark first called Javier Solano, NATO’s
secretary-general, before he called Gen Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Explaining his predicament, he notes, “I was the overall commander, but represented a nation that didn’t want to participate.”17 Interestingly, rather than choosing a term such as worked for or served, he uses represented, which connotes a lesser degree of responsibility and a passive relationship instead of an active allegiance. Indeed, Clark dedicated his book to Solano and NATO’s leaders and armed forces- not to the United States and its military.

Although General Clark did not renounce his allegiance to the US Constitution in favor of the NATO alliance, he struggled with the question of where his responsibilities and priorities lay. Despite the differences of opinion between the United States and NATO regarding interests, goals, and methods, both parties had the same overarching objective- stopping the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Consequently, Clark did not have to make an either-or choice.19 However, this example shows how the complexity of modern war and the problems generated by working with alliances can cause even a great American like General Clark to struggle. The act of reaffirming the oath of office should serve to guide all officers when they find themselves in difficult situations...."

www.scribd.com...



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Thank you all for posting.

It is easy yo see how the allegiance to the oath could be construed. Hopefully our troops will do what is right for mankind.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
remember the situation with michael new and his refusal to swear allegience to united nations.

video.google.com...#

What prompted Michael New to take on the United States Army, the Department of Defense, and the President of the United States? Spin artists of the New World Order have attempted to paint this model soldier and unobtrusive young man as a troublemaker, a rebel, and an extremist. Wherein lies the truth? With an honest examination of the facts, the video Good Conduct reveals a starling and definitive conclusion: that Michael New is hindering the advancement of a global agenda. This is the story they don't want you to hear.




top topics



 
0

log in

join