Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the POTUS starts an illegal unconstitutional war. Does the military follow that order without conscience or question?
Are we talking about Bush here? Either way, there are advisors and military members present to feed the POTUS intel. Not only that but there's a check and balance system in place for a reason.
Quote:
If the POTUS orders US Military to attack and detain American citizens, should they obey that order?
It depends on what the American citizens are doing. If there is substantial proof and evidence of terrorist activity or actions that are a threat to the foundation of the American way of life, then no I have no problem with that. As long as the orders accomplish a military mission, then the military members must obey. There's people constantly reviewing these orders and making sure they are indeed lawful. Again, check and balance.
Quote:
If the POTUS assassinates innocent people in a drone attack on a Country that HE has not declared war on, through Congressional approval, is that a problem for you?
It doesn't matter if it's a problem to me or not. I have no feelings one way or the other about it. Pretty much I don't care. My opinion alone won't change anything and the POTUS couldn't have done what he did without some sort of authorization for his actions. The POTUS isn't some high and mighty all powerful being as you're making him out to be. He's only human.
Not without completely overhauling everything in our political system, which means getting rid of anyone currently holding office.
If there is something that needs a complete washing/overhaul. It's this gov't system, that has gone against the founding principles, and created a corruption that could take down the world.
THat's fine, i think they are ready to risk that potential.
Thanks for your service.
I didn't mean me, although my direct family (parents/sister) were military members.
As long as the members of the military realise the consequences of their actions, then that's fine. That's the whole point that we've been trying to get across.
If there is something that needs a complete washing/overhaul. It's this gov't system, that has gone against the founding principles, and created a corruption that could take down the world.
And it's not going to happen.
Our government will continue to change, hopefully to a more socialist system.
Are we talking about Bush here? Either way, there are advisors and military members present to feed the POTUS intel. Not only that but there's a check and balance system in place for a reason.
Yes, and BHO, and whoever else gets elected and continues this slaughter of innocence.
Quote:
It depends on what the American citizens are doing. If there is substantial proof and evidence of terrorist activity or actions that are a threat to the foundation of the American way of life, then no I have no problem with that. As long as the orders accomplish a military mission, then the military members must obey. There's people constantly reviewing these orders and making sure they are indeed lawful. Again, check and balance.
Is fighting a treasonous, tyrannical gov't considered terrorism now?
Quote:
It doesn't matter if it's a problem to me or not. I have no feelings one way or the other about it. Pretty much I don't care. My opinion alone won't change anything and the POTUS couldn't have done what he did without some sort of authorization for his actions. The POTUS isn't some high and mighty all powerful being as you're making him out to be. He's only human.
Actually he is the most powerful human on the planet. Able to vaporize billions of people in a matter of hours.
I've seen fully dressed military at NON POTUS Political events, there to support the candidate.
I've been around a long time. This is selective use of the UCMJ.
Are you sure they were there to support the candidate or did they happen to just be there, say, when the candidate visited a hospital or military base or some such?
I've been around a long time too.
This is not a new rule, although, I must say that until the Ron Paul candidacy I'd not ever seen such flagrant abuses of said rule.
As I've said before, if Mr. Paul truly respected the military, he would discourage illegal actions on his behalf.
But, so far as I know, he's said nothing.
Tells me all I need to know about his respect for our institutions.
It has always been an issue. You simply choose to ignore the fact that there is a huge difference between uniformed military members attending an event sponsored by a candidate and one sponsored or featuring the duly elected president of the United States, i.e. their Commander-in-Chief.
You also continue to ignore that part of the oath that states that in addition to honoring the constitution they will also respect the office of the Commander-in-Chief.
Why such selective reasoning?
Where does it state that they will respect the CIC? Perhaps you have never read it? The oath nor the UCMJ use the word "respect".
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.
Their oath to the US Constitution is primary, over the POTUS.
Prove it.
Provide one single valid interpretation that states that the military oath is not to be taken in its entirety and that one section has primacy over another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
