Question about the Military Oath

[americanpride]

To what extent is the Soldier to fulfill his duty of defending the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and domestic?

[101ABN]

americanpride said:

To what extent is the Soldier to fulfill his duty of defending the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and domestic?

AP, your question is very broad and potentially loaded.

Chisel it down a little.

What, exactly are you looking for?

[americanpride]

Well, as a future Army officer, I am interested in becoming aware of the duties obligated to me by the oath. I have not yet to speak the oath, though upon entrance into the ROTC program, I have signed it, and I am bound by that signature to not only pursue the duties required of me, but to understand them. Should an event arise in the future in which I would have to decide upon which course of action to pursue despite all pressures and resistance, I will be clear in the understandings of the obligations to which I have attached my personal honor.

I suppose my question inherently relates to the role of the military not only within the context of the United States in specifics, but also within the context of liberty and a republic in general.

Logically I think there can be established a variety of events and scenarios that should they occur, the US military would be spurred to action, most obvious of them of course being national defense against foriegn attack, but perhaps more importantly, the preservation of the American system within the national borders, as this duty is implied by the oath taken by US servicemen and women. Unfortunately the Founding Fathers - to the extent that I am aware of their writings - did not take into much consideration the role and mission of the military within the context of liberty and a republic.

However if we are to conceive the Constitution as the highest law of the land, and that this Constitution is the object to which we commit our efforts in its defense, then any entity, foriegn or domestic, that challenges, undermines, usurps, distorts, or destroys the Constitution in whole or in part is our enemy. What I am curious about is if principally speaking should elements of the institutions established by the Constitution challenge, undermine, usurp, distort, or destroy the very same object that created them, is the military obligated to pursue a course of action that would restore the Constitution?

I was speaking on this subject with one of my high school friends who is also a cadet and when I inquired into his opinion on the matter, he replied with an answer that I found to be wanting. He stated that our obligation as defined by the oath is to the extent to which it is defined by our superiors. However, (1) the Army officer oath does not establish any condition of authority or command, legal or otherwise, to which is bound our duties except the Constitution and (2) that should an order or command be illegal, we are obligated not to carry it out. As above, if we conceive the Constitution as the highest law of the land and the object of our defense, then that charge supercedes all orders, commands, and authorities, and should we as soldiers be ordered to an action which is unconstitutional or in any way challenges, usurps, disrupts, undermines, or destroys the Constitution, not only are we to refuse that order, but we are to remove the source of the illegal action in accordance to our "faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. In extension, should we be ordered to passively defend a clear challenge, disruption, or destruction of the Constitution in whole or in part even if done within the legal framework set forth by the Constitution itself, that mission would be illegal and in violation of our oath to "SUPPORT and defend" the Constitution and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

It is clear to me that the officer oath does not require me to defend the Commander-in-Chief or any of his subordinates should his actions be contrary to the Constitution, which would define him as an enemy. Now of course the question therefore is, under which circumstances am I required to act in "support and defense" of the Constitution against the legal powers appointed over me? What am I to interpret as an action that challenges, undermines, usurps, disrupts, or destroys the Constitution in whole or in part? At what point am I to become a serviceman of the United States Government to an American patriot and revolutionary?

I hope that clarifies my concerns more clearly, though I feel as if I simply babbled.

[dustdevil28]

americanpride said:

Well, as a future Army officer, I am interested in becoming aware of the duties obligated to me by the oath. I have not yet to speak the oath, though upon entrance into the ROTC program, I have signed it, and I am bound by that signature to not only pursue the duties required of me, but to understand them. Should an event arise in the future in which I would have to decide upon which course of action to pursue despite all pressures and resistance, I will be clear in the understandings of the obligations to which I have attached my personal honor.

I suppose my question inherently relates to the role of the military not only within the context of the United States in specifics, but also within the context of liberty and a republic in general.

Logically I think there can be established a variety of events and scenarios that should they occur, the US military would be spurred to action, most obvious of them of course being national defense against foriegn attack, but perhaps more importantly, the preservation of the American system within the national borders, as this duty is implied by the oath taken by US servicemen and women. Unfortunately the Founding Fathers - to the extent that I am aware of their writings - did not take into much consideration the role and mission of the military within the context of liberty and a republic.

However if we are to conceive the Constitution as the highest law of the land, and that this Constitution is the object to which we commit our efforts in its defense, then any entity, foriegn or domestic, that challenges, undermines, usurps, distorts, or destroys the Constitution in whole or in part is our enemy. What I am curious about is if principally speaking should elements of the institutions established by the Constitution challenge, undermine, usurp, distort, or destroy the very same object that created them, is the military obligated to pursue a course of action that would restore the Constitution?

I was speaking on this subject with one of my high school friends who is also a cadet and when I inquired into his opinion on the matter, he replied with an answer that I found to be wanting. He stated that our obligation as defined by the oath is to the extent to which it is defined by our superiors. However, (1) the Army officer oath does not establish any condition of authority or command, legal or otherwise, to which is bound our duties except the Constitution and (2) that should an order or command be illegal, we are obligated not to carry it out. As above, if we conceive the Constitution as the highest law of the land and the object of our defense, then that charge supercedes all orders, commands, and authorities, and should we as soldiers be ordered to an action which is unconstitutional or in any way challenges, usurps, disrupts, undermines, or destroys the Constitution, not only are we to refuse that order, but we are to remove the source of the illegal action in accordance to our "faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. In extension, should we be ordered to passively defend a clear challenge, disruption, or destruction of the Constitution in whole or in part even if done within the legal framework set forth by the Constitution itself, that mission would be illegal and in violation of our oath to "SUPPORT and defend" the Constitution and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

It is clear to me that the officer oath does not require me to defend the Commander-in-Chief or any of his subordinates should his actions be contrary to the Constitution, which would define him as an enemy. Now of course the question therefore is, under which circumstances am I required to act in "support and defense" of the Constitution against the legal powers appointed over me? What am I to interpret as an action that challenges, undermines, usurps, disrupts, or destroys the Constitution in whole or in part? At what point am I to become a serviceman of the United States Government to an American patriot and revolutionary?

I hope that clarifies my concerns more clearly, though I feel as if I simply babbled.

Sorry if I got this wrong Chris, but are you asking if it's your duty to oppose others who's actions are contrary to the constitution? If so, what about the grey areas such as gay marriage?

I'd agree with your friend that the extent of your oath is mostly defined by your superiors. They'll be the ones deciding who is assigned to which job here or there, in whichever job they select you to perform that will be the extent providing that the job does not violate civilian laws and the UCMJ.

[americanpride]

battleborn said:

americanpride said:

Well, as a future Army officer, I am interested in becoming aware of the duties obligated to me by the oath. I have not yet to speak the oath, though upon entrance into the ROTC program, I have signed it, and I am bound by that signature to not only pursue the duties required of me, but to understand them. Should an event arise in the future in which I would have to decide upon which course of action to pursue despite all pressures and resistance, I will be clear in the understandings of the obligations to which I have attached my personal honor.

I suppose my question inherently relates to the role of the military not only within the context of the United States in specifics, but also within the context of liberty and a republic in general.

Logically I think there can be established a variety of events and scenarios that should they occur, the US military would be spurred to action, most obvious of them of course being national defense against foriegn attack, but perhaps more importantly, the preservation of the American system within the national borders, as this duty is implied by the oath taken by US servicemen and women. Unfortunately the Founding Fathers - to the extent that I am aware of their writings - did not take into much consideration the role and mission of the military within the context of liberty and a republic.

However if we are to conceive the Constitution as the highest law of the land, and that this Constitution is the object to which we commit our efforts in its defense, then any entity, foriegn or domestic, that challenges, undermines, usurps, distorts, or destroys the Constitution in whole or in part is our enemy. What I am curious about is if principally speaking should elements of the institutions established by the Constitution challenge, undermine, usurp, distort, or destroy the very same object that created them, is the military obligated to pursue a course of action that would restore the Constitution?

I was speaking on this subject with one of my high school friends who is also a cadet and when I inquired into his opinion on the matter, he replied with an answer that I found to be wanting. He stated that our obligation as defined by the oath is to the extent to which it is defined by our superiors. However, (1) the Army officer oath does not establish any condition of authority or command, legal or otherwise, to which is bound our duties except the Constitution and (2) that should an order or command be illegal, we are obligated not to carry it out. As above, if we conceive the Constitution as the highest law of the land and the object of our defense, then that charge supercedes all orders, commands, and authorities, and should we as soldiers be ordered to an action which is unconstitutional or in any way challenges, usurps, disrupts, undermines, or destroys the Constitution, not only are we to refuse that order, but we are to remove the source of the illegal action in accordance to our "faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. In extension, should we be ordered to passively defend a clear challenge, disruption, or destruction of the Constitution in whole or in part even if done within the legal framework set forth by the Constitution itself, that mission would be illegal and in violation of our oath to "SUPPORT and defend" the Constitution and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

It is clear to me that the officer oath does not require me to defend the Commander-in-Chief or any of his subordinates should his actions be contrary to the Constitution, which would define him as an enemy. Now of course the question therefore is, under which circumstances am I required to act in "support and defense" of the Constitution against the legal powers appointed over me? What am I to interpret as an action that challenges, undermines, usurps, disrupts, or destroys the Constitution in whole or in part? At what point am I to become a serviceman of the United States Government to an American patriot and revolutionary?

I hope that clarifies my concerns more clearly, though I feel as if I simply babbled.

Sorry if I got this wrong Chris, but are you asking if it's your duty to oppose others who's actions are contrary to the constitution? If so, what about the grey areas such as gay marriage?

I'd agree with your friend that the extent of your oath is mostly defined by your superiors. They'll be the ones deciding who is assigned to which job here or there, in whichever job they select you to perform that will be the extent providing that the job does not violate civilian laws and the UCMJ.

The Constitution clearly states it is my duty to engage all enemies to the Constitution, both foriegn and domestic. I must "support and defend" the Constitution and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." The oath does not establish any condition of authority, my duty to the Constitution is absolute and supercedes all orders, commands, authorities, and superiors.

But I am wondering at which point does my oath command me to resist the legal authorities appointed over me? In extreme measure, should the President abolish Congress, yes. But in more minor measures such as federal courts assuming constitutional powers not assigned to them, or the Supreme Court making a ruling that's directly contrary to Constitutional articles, what I am, as an Officer and an American, required to do?

In this sense, the military is REQUIRED to be political in that the object of its existence is solely the defense of the Constitution.

[101ABN]

It doesn't sound like you've read the whole oath.

The Constitution you are sworn to uphold states clearly the authority of the President, as C in C, over the military.

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.

If you cannot take the oath, accept its charge in its entirity, without reading things into it that are not there, you should refrain from taking it at all.

[americanpride]

101,

The oath of an Army officer reads:

"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 or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations 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."

This oath establishes no condition of authority other than the Constitution. My question is at what point does that oath supercede presidential, or any other, orders, commands, and authorities?

[101ABN]

My error, I forgot the enlisted oath is different. I suppose that the thinking must be that enlisted types need it explained for them and that officers, being (arguably) the educated class, would have already read the Constitution and have a somehat clear understanding of it.

No matter.

The Constitution clearly establishes the line of civil authority over the military. And yes, you must follow all lawful orders from your superiors. And yes, that includes the President C in C.

You may, in no way, use your interpretation of the oath as justification for some future act of sedition or rebellion.

[Husky23]

americanpride said:

101,

The oath of an Army officer reads:

"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 or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations 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."

This oath establishes no condition of authority other than the Constitution. My question is at what point does that oath supercede presidential, or any other, orders, commands, and authorities?

This oath establishes no condition of authority other than the Constitution. My question is at what point does that oath supersede presidential, or any other, orders, commands, and authorities?

Answer: When it is unlawful.

Now, when is that? Some are quite blatantly obvious and others…pushing gray to new colors of.

The quandary;

It is the officer’s duty to obey lawful orders, but he/she may disobey--and indeed must, disobey unlawful orders. This has been the law of the United States since the birth of the nation.
There probably will be some instances in a person’s career where some orders will come into question and some may be unlawful or immoral. We should not presume that orders we receive are illegal. Rather, we should presume that they are legal. The officers appointed over you took the same oath, and as you, are held to a higher standard of behavior. It is expected. An officer loyalty, while some automatic, is either nourished or tarnished because of their moral and ethical behaviors. Keep in mind -- we are under NO obligation to obey an unlawful order, but to disobey a lawful order – but in disobeying a lawful order is at the risk of the subordinate and subject to UCMJ actions. Pick your fights carefully - watch your ass!

Here’s a simple example that occurred in my young Pilot-in-Command career. Our Aviation Battalion went to the field to support an Infantry brigade for like 3 weeks to a very isolated location in Korea, deep within the mountains. It’s winter and the weather is notoriously poor; low ceilings, quarter to half mile visibility with sleet or snow. Anyway, we’ve not been able to fly for like 4 days; the “Full Bird” Infantry commander is getting very upset, because we are his show to move his troops all along the battle field and our attached attack birds to wipe out the enemy armor. Our “Light Bird” Aviation commander is getting pressured, see this is his field evaluation (from guess who?).
I get notified I am supposed to launch, as a weather ship, and poke around up and down the tight mountain valley and determine if we got weather for the mission. I so all my pre-mission planning, I’m also eyeballing the sky and it ain’t no; Day minimum for mountain flight of 500 foot ceiling and at least ½ mile visibility. But I’ll wait until I go to the Air force weather dude in the operations tent – to “officially” declare mission cancelled.
As I enter, I see our “Light Bird” commander hovering over this lonely airman – you can see the poor dude is nervous. Then incredulously I hear over the static of the radio from Seoul Air Force weather one set of weather criteria (NO-GO weather) but hear the “Light Bird” issue instructions for this young airman to jot down another set of (minimum GO) criteria weather. I’m steaming. I exit the tent, wait a few then re-enter. The “Light Bird” is waiting for me and indicates he was kind enough to get my weather for me (that’s never happened before). I say thanks, but I’ll check weather myself because there’s some 24-48 hour outlook stuff I want to get. He orders me to take this weather brief and to move-out because I’m running late. I glance over at the young airman, and he’s staring at the ground.

Note: My responsibility as Pilot-in-Command to check weather and verify weather. I could have fought him here, but decided not at this point – I have a fall back.

I mention to the “Light Bird” as we exit the tent, the weather does not appear near close to what is indicated on this brief and I’m hesitant to risk the safety of my crew in these rugged mountains. He gets real irritated and directly orders me to fly.

“Yes sir.”

I get in, crank my bird, do all out systems checks then lift the aircraft to a hover so as all wheels are clear of the ground, then land and shutdown.

See, AR 95-1 Army Flight Regulations: 4.21 Pilot in command, the pilot in command (PC) will be--
a. Responsible and have final authority for operating, servicing, and securing the aircraft he or she commands.

As soon as the bird departed the ground, by that regulation, if the President ordered me to continue, I can tell him to pack sand – for I am the final authority for operating. I decided it was unsafe and terminated the flight.

Boy was that “Light Bird” pissed off. He, me, and my company commander had to join him in his tent. He went off at me - throwing pencils at me and threatening my OER. I had data though, the airman made a copy of the original weather request, and I had one of my other pilots verify and get it. I confronted the “Light Bird” on his error of ethics and moral judgment because he needed his field exercise rated.

You gotta make the decision – when to fall on your sword or not.

I did this because:

1. The weather dangerously poor and for the safety of my aircraft and crew.
2. Because I caught the Battalion Commander in an outright lie and violation of his oath.
3. He placed me and my crew in jeopardy, not for some actual critical combat mission, but for his own selfish desires during training. Fucking training!

[tits]

Do you recall the image of the ATF agent in body armor with the MP3 at the ready snatching the child Elian Gonzales from his uncle?

When asked later about the image of this burly man in body armor and weapon under the child's nose, The AFT Marshall replied. "I was just obeying orders."

65 years ago young men took the challenge to join one of the most elite fighting forces in the world. A force that brought terror into the hearts and minds of all who faced them. A terror that melted into a blind hatred that meant death for simply being a member of that elite group should they attempt to surrender.

Those men took the following oath:
"I swear to you Adolf Hitler, as Leader and Chancellor of the Reich, loyalty and valor. I vow to you and all those you place over me obedience until death, so help me God."

There are major differences between the oaths of service and allegiances between the US military, AFT, FBI, law enforcement, and other governments. Of course the members of any military unit will be required to swear oaths of obedience to the Commander-in-Chief. No fighting force can function without such an oath.

However, the question really arises as too the heart of the individual at the time the oath is challenged. The thought that the US Marshall could appease his soul by simply stating: "I was only following orders." Rings as hollow as those submitted by the thousands of German, Japanese, and foreign troops after major wars. That defense has never stood in the international court of law. The individuals have been found guilty for "disobeying the common moral law."

In Vietnam, especially during the dark years between 101's years of service and mine, it was not unheard of for troops or squads of troops to disobey an order and refuse to fight or to take to the field. This action endangered the lives of those men who did take to the field and needed their support.

Hollywood has depicted these people as heroes and then painted the lock-step "lieutenants" who conduct all commands, no matter how difficult as evil. Often the AFT, Secret Service, FBI, or SPECOPS Operator, are displayed as killing an innocent out of loyalty to the command.

A book that I highly recommend that explains the common SS Mann is “Loyalty is my honor”. Those elite troops who conducted some of the most appalling acts of cruelty in modern history were just 17 to 22 year old boys wanting to be the best. Those boys were indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to that oath and the obedience of the command was everything. In Einstadzgruppen Reports and other documents, field commanders speak of how the older men could not perform the duty and most were emotionally useless after only a couple of “operations”. That the younger men and the foreign (Hungarian) could perform the duty with little loss. The difference, the younger troops were indoctrinated that loyalty to the oath superceded everything. “I was given an order and had to obey it.”

AP, your question is loaded as 101 suggests for there are times when the disobedience of a command is warranted because it is not "lawful". However, there have been times going back to the Revolutionary War when disobedience brought great peril to the greater command and eventually execution of the troop who disobeyed. There have been times when the disobeying of the command did save lives, wrong artillery coordinates for example.

A simple answer, I would not believe that you would ever be given a lawful command that you should disobey for anything other than personal moral issues. I.e. Close the hatch of a burning compartment knowing that your shipmates will be killed and not knowing the ship could be lost if you do not. This happen on the USS Stark 17 May 1987 when an Iraqi Mirage F-1 warplane fired two Exocet anti-ship cruise missiles at the US Navy frigate Stark in the Persian Gulf severely damaging the ship and killing 37 sailors. If the non-rates had not sealed the compartment, the entire vessel would have been lost.

In 1971, the Kent State incident would have been a classic example of an unlawful order should one had been given to ”open fire”. No charges of an unlawful order were ever brought. The entire incident happened when scared classmates in the USANG uniform were being taunted by angry classmates. The tensions got very high and someone somehow someone mistook a backfiring engine or firecracker as a gunshot and about 12 members of the guard opened fire. Not all members opened fired, only a few.

Question, if you do not believe that your superiors will offer lawful orders then maybe you should consider a different career choice. Husky did an excellent job, consider his words well.

Dave, sorry for the speech, it was the Dad thing!

[americanpride]

It's not that I assume that all orders will be unlawful. It is only that I desire to understand the extent to which I am to fulfill the obligations of my oath.

But it seems to me that the oath is not interpreted as absolute, and perhaps for reasons of practicality.

Perhaps my question is not being fully understood or I am not accurately portraying my thoughts. I understand that should I be given an unlawful order, I am not to obey it and to the extent of my capability, resist it. But the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land and by oath I am obligated to defend it.

How do I interpret an UNCONSTITUTIONAL action?

If I do, what is to be my course of action?

Should a superior whether in uniform or not uniform partcipate in unconstitutional activity, is his/her authority over me null and void?

Is the passive acceptance of unconstitutional activity a violation of the oath?

I understand that the practical matter of these questions may be to an extent unrealistic, but I am speaking principally and theoretically.

[Husky23]

americanpride said:

It's not that I assume that all orders will be unlawful. It is only that I desire to understand the extent to which I am to fulfill the obligations of my oath.

But it seems to me that the oath is not interpreted as absolute, and perhaps for reasons of practicality.

Perhaps my question is not being fully understood or I am not accurately portraying my thoughts. I understand that should I be given an unlawful order, I am not to obey it and to the extent of my capability, resist it. But the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land and by oath I am obligated to defend it.

How do I interpret an UNCONSTITUTIONAL action?

If I do, what is to be my course of action?

Should a superior whether in uniform or not uniform partcipate in unconstitutional activity, is his/her authority over me null and void?

Is the passive acceptance of unconstitutional activity a violation of the oath?

I understand that the practical matter of these questions may be to an extent unrealistic, but I am speaking principally and theoretically.

The four levels of learning brother:

Rote
Application
Correlation
Understanding

Hey, everyone is unique, everyone has a different measure, everyone has their own personal metal. Yours will be forged under trials and tribulations, tested and tried. It will develop. The is no quantifiable analytical answer, it is not math – so do not look in that direction. If your heart is right; if you act out of selflessness, considering your subordinates, the mission, the law, the orders, and your own moral compass – the choice becomes clearer during the event.

“Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”