4 ms·

You can just google the oaths that people take. - enlisted: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html > I, _____, do solemnl

You can just google the oaths that people take. - enlisted: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html > 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). - officers: https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html > 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; 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. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)

wongarsu 2y ago
Which does match what GP said. Enlisted swear to defend the constitution and obey the president. No limitation to lawful orders or stated precedence between the too. Commissioned officers don't swear to obey the president
- stonogo 2y ago
  What do you mean "no limitation to lawful orders"? That's what "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" means. Article 92 is pretty explicit about what constitutes a lawful order.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  It’s explicit about following orders according to the UCMJ, and the UCMJ clearly defines what constitutes a lawful order that must be followed. So, it’s transitive, but the enlisted oath is limited to lawful orders.
mingus88 2y ago
Take a look at the Oath Keepers or the 3%ers and let me know if you think they are going to do the right thing here. They took an oath to protect their interests. That’s it and that’s all.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I'll grant you that these militias are well-armed and have sketchy loyalties, but if the US military decided they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution, against Trump, they'd crush the Oath Keepers and their ilk.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Many of the members of those militias are themselves military or ex-military. Which already tells you volumes about how likely it is that all of the US military would "decide they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution". Besides, those guys don't think of what they are doing as contradicting the constitution - quite the opposite! They are very obviously wrong, but that has never stopped fanatics from believing in their creed. The real question, anyway, is not whether the military will obey Trump's illegal orders, should he issue them. It's whether the military would do something to stop the militias if Trump lets them off the leash with an explicit mandate. And my concern is that most of the lower-ranking officers and people below them will prefer to sit it out. Because if they do something, and it's not enough, they are all looking at actual treason charges and likely death sentences.
    - UncleEntity 2y ago
      Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news? Some light reading --> https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-american-soil--operational-risks---considerations https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-a...
      - 2y ago

wongarsu 2y ago

Which does match what GP said. Enlisted swear to defend the constitution and obey the president. No limitation to lawful orders or stated precedence between the too. Commissioned officers don't swear to obey the president

stonogo 2y ago
What do you mean "no limitation to lawful orders"? That's what "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" means. Article 92 is pretty explicit about what constitutes a lawful order.
ncallaway 2y ago
It’s explicit about following orders according to the UCMJ, and the UCMJ clearly defines what constitutes a lawful order that must be followed. So, it’s transitive, but the enlisted oath is limited to lawful orders.

mingus88 2y ago

Take a look at the Oath Keepers or the 3%ers and let me know if you think they are going to do the right thing here. They took an oath to protect their interests. That’s it and that’s all.

kelnos 2y ago
I'll grant you that these militias are well-armed and have sketchy loyalties, but if the US military decided they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution, against Trump, they'd crush the Oath Keepers and their ilk.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Many of the members of those militias are themselves military or ex-military. Which already tells you volumes about how likely it is that all of the US military would "decide they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution". Besides, those guys don't think of what they are doing as contradicting the constitution - quite the opposite! They are very obviously wrong, but that has never stopped fanatics from believing in their creed. The real question, anyway, is not whether the military will obey Trump's illegal orders, should he issue them. It's whether the military would do something to stop the militias if Trump lets them off the leash with an explicit mandate. And my concern is that most of the lower-ranking officers and people below them will prefer to sit it out. Because if they do something, and it's not enough, they are all looking at actual treason charges and likely death sentences.
  - UncleEntity 2y ago
    Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news? Some light reading --> https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-american-soil--operational-risks---considerations https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-a...
    - 2y ago