At what moment does the US military separate itself from the government when thinking the Soldiers creed and oath of enlistment ?

.

SSgt Michael Bowen - SSG Bowen do you know the ideology of BLM protests and the ideology of those who attacked the Capitol Building? Are you cognizant of the power of ideology in influencing actions of people? I will wait for your cogent answer.

MAJ Ken Landgren - Bowen got blocked by me, he won't be able to answer on this thread.

I want to know if he understands ideology and how it impacts causes. Capt Gregory Prickett

You don't have to like the orders but unless they are unlawful the order needs to be obeyed. With 22 years in uniform I was never given an unlawful order so that not a problem that I ever had to deal with. There is no room for open debate as to if or when You will obey a lawful order and there can't be.

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter absolutely. Hit the nail on the head with that comment. What I was trying to convey when not so attached to reality started going on the the "Nazi" bs like they always do.

MAJ (Join to see) - Hopefully you don't think that I am one of those perv's.

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter - how many ill legitimate marxist /communist leaders have you had to server under ? the kids are asking because the actions they see playing out are in direct opposition to their oath to defend the republic , they know something wrong , Something they have not see before in their lifetimes , as senior enlisted you need to justify to them why there is no southern border , why most rights are being removed from the people .... hey just do your job instead of "just following orders" that line not going to cut it when the ashes of this coming war settles.

SPC Curtis Underwood - Just exactly how many Constitutional rights do you really have when you enlist. Not as many as you are trying to claim I believe. You answer to the UCMJ!

SGT Steven Nelson - You didn't contribute anything of value in the other thread and you're not doing any better here. It's pretty chitty when you throw three insults and I get blocked snd cannot respond. It wouldn't make any difference, I normally ignore trashily composed comments. This the only time I will respond to you for this comment and the three on the other thread. Conservatives still out-number libs for which I am really thankful. Have a good life.

PO2 Michael Coon - Since this is your thread, why are certain individuals making their comment and then blocking the other so they can't respond. I thought that was what this whole site is for, discussion and debate.

Very well said.

SPC Curtis Underwood - If your commander said, "I need you to take your men up the left side of that hill and take the machine gun out" and you decided not to do it, do you think that you'd get away with arguing that it was phrased as a request if you got taken to a court martial? If the commander's intent is clear, it's an order even if he precedes "Do X" with "Please" or "I want you to" or "I need you to".

Certainly there could be some hidden reason of military necessity for you to pick up the general's daughter and take her to piano practice. But unless the general is aware of such, it's a violation of 10 USC 3639 for him to have you do it anyway. And if someone didn't do it and were brought before a court martial, unless the prosecution were able to present evidence that the reason for the order was a military necessity, they wouldn't go to jail, because their military defense lawyer would certainly point out that the order wasn't lawful for him to give, and that you therefore weren't compelled to obey it. Of course, if I were ordered to do something like that, I would point out to my boss that his order might get him into trouble, so that he could tell me what the military necessity is or change his mind, and if he didn't do either of those, unless I had a really good reason not to, I'd do what he wanted me to do, precisely because it's neither unlawful or immoral for me to do so. And if it became apparent that this wasn't just a one-off thing, I'd suggest to our JAG officer that he/she might want to have a chat with the commander about it, or just call the IG if it was recurring and abusive to the troops.

Regarding your final question, I'll first point out that I mentioned an order that is illegal and doesn't have an immoral outcome. Not immoral is not the same as moral - there are any number of things that are morally neutral. It is likely to be morally neutral whether or not I pick up the general's daughter and take her to piano practice, even though the order is illegal. But continuing on to illegal orders with moral outcomes, it's possible (and probably even likely) that there are moral outcomes whether I follow the illegal order or not. In which case, the reason to not follow the order is its illegality, since following it or not following it has a moral outcome (and some would argue that following an illegal order is an immoral outcome, regardless of the result of doing so).

LCDR Robert S. - The commands intent is the thing. If it is in a combat situation then the intent is known. If it is not in a situation where the intent is unknown then it can be interpreted as a request. That is the problem as I see it. The General is not in a situation where the intent is known, in the scenario of picking his daughter up. But it has been 40 years since I was in and things change.
I was given an illegal order from a general once. I know for a fact it was not legal. Did I follow it, hell yes I did. Why because if I had not, I would have been up on a court marital charges for not following a direct order that I could not win(cards were stacked). The wording of the order was "I am ordering you to sign this article 15". I knew I could not be ordered to sign it legally and he knew, that I knew that but gave the order anyway. This told me he had me either way.
The charges in the article 15 was for being late to formation. In the Army a little leniency is given to personnel living off base if things like a car break down happens. Which is what happened to me. But what caused me to be late was an MP holding me up at the gate because I was on foot. He held me there for 20 minutes. I explained this to the Captain, but it fell on death ears. So after talking with an attorney, I told the Captain I would not sign it and would go to court martial. At that point and time I just got to point I did not give a damn.
I was an E4 in NCO academy at this time. I was told I would be busted to E1 and fined 450$. Well I had a family and could not afford the fines. So I made the decision to go to court. It did not matter if they found me guilty or not, because it would just mean DD if I were found guilty, was what the my lawyer told me. I would find work outside to support family. I told the general as much.
Well that General had other ideas. So the order was given me. Well at some point you know when you've lost. I was mad and so told the general in no uncertain words what I thought of him and the Army but I added sir after it. He just laughed and said "dismissed".

I was put on KP for 3 weeks and the cooks knew what was goin on so they put me on OJT for cook(not washing dishes) so I learned to cook lol.
I got orders finally but it said to report back to the General. I was none to happy about reporting back to him. See I wore the rank of E1 because I was busted down, had been fined 325$. The only recourse left to me was sending my wife back home to our family until I got out. So happy I was not.
I reported to the General, Stood at attention and Said "Private Underwood reporting as ordered sir". He said "at ease and have a set". Opps now what I asked my self. Well he explained the whole situation to me. It seams there was about 400 students that was graduating and they had only 40 slots for E5. They had to reduce that number and I was one of that number. This was not because of grades, I was one of the highest. I was told the ones that did get the promotion would be order to Vietnam. They needed infantry not aviation at that time. So the 40 that got promotions was infantry. They found reasons to either fail or give article 15s to most of the others, Or told them they would be in next cycle and some just quit.
The General told me that most of the ones who got Article 15, paper work would just vanish and would not be on their records. It would depend on what they got them for.5For me I was not fined, keep my rank of E4/SP4 and I have no article 14 on my records. I was reassigned to none other then special forces training company(oh Great) again screwed lol. I went through 6 weeks of training with them and was reassigned to 355 aviation, where I started from.
I ended up with 3 MOSs, UH-1 mechanic crew chief, Cook and infantry SF.
Guess what I ended up crewing that darn generals Chopper( he was also aviation.) He told me next time he rotated to overseas or Nam I was going with him. But never came to pass.
The reason I told you this is there is a moral outcome to this but there is also intent.
Was the order to sign Illegal? Yes according to regulations
Did I have legal reasons to not follow that order? Yes
Would I have won in a court Martial? No (this was according to my lawyer)
The reason I would have lost, I am not sure. My military lawyer never said in plain English, but he quoted of about 10 regulation numbers that they would have got me on.
But a drill instructor in basic is where I got the info about the wording of orders. So He may have told us wrong. That was 40 years ago.

SPC Curtis Underwood - The drill instructor told you wrong. If a subordinate is unsure whether something is an order or a request, it is the subordinate's responsibility to ask. Someone *might* succeed at trial or NJP in arguing that they thought it was a request, but at trial or NJP, the word of the accused, the commander, and any witnesses would be what determines the possibility of success. I don't think most NJP authorities or members of a court are going to buy the argument that "I want you to" or "I need you to" is unclear enough for someone to assume it's a request.

Things may have changed in the 10 or so years between when you got your not-actually-an-article-15 and when I became aware of the details of article 15 hearings, and it would be a pretty significant change if it had. In the current process, which hasn't changed significantly since the 80s when I became aware of it, a service member's signature on the forms relating to an article 15 hearing are not optional, and thus it's not an illegal order to tell someone that they have to sign them. Things that are legally required to be signed are whether one demands a court martial or submits to non-judicial punishment and whether or not one wants to appeal. One of the regulation numbers that the lawyer quoted at you was probably article 92, which is failure to obey a lawful order, since an order to sign the paperwork on your article 15 proceedings is a lawful order.

LCDR Robert S. - I was not asked to sign any forms. I was just informed I was getting an article 15. This was the day after I was late.
I never had any kind of hearing before any officers or non commissioned officers where I could respond to the charges. The only time I made any reply to anyone about why I was late was to the first sergeant when I reported to him the morning I was late. There was just the first sergeant in the office.
I was called before the Commanding officer and told that I would be busted down in rank and fined 450$. There was no hearing and the only people present was the commanding officer and first sergeant. I was held at attention the whole time and not allowed to speak. The article 15 paperwork was laid down in front of me on the desk and I was told I was no longer an NCO academy student if I signed and accepted the article 15. That to not sign would mean a court martial. I just stood there until they asked me if I were going to sign or not and I said NO sir and requested a lawyer.
Two days later at the lawyers office I did sign papers that had to do with the article 15 and accepting him as a my representation, but he said these were just a formality and that may have been what you are referring to.
I may have been young and dumb but I was not stupid.
The order "I am ordering you to sign this article 15" from the adjutant general was to sign acceptance of the article 15 and it's punishment. I signed and the punishment started, I was told by the sergeant major upon leaving the generals office to remove my rank insignia.
I do not know if this was a proper way to do a nonjudicial punishment's or not but it is the way it happened to me.

MSG Stan Hutchison - LMFAO most Americans do believe as I do you just don't see it or choose not to. I am 70 years old and see a lot of things. One of the major things is socialism. I swore and oath to protect our constitution against attacks and right now it is being attacked. The very basics is now being attacked by this socialist agenda. But you see things different. You may be a socialist at heart. We have had many socialist/communist including a newspaper owner here that restricted the news lol. But we got the real news from other sources so we allowed his socialist print because this is a free nation.
It is in the constitution by that we the people have the right to overthrow an oppressive government, the second amendment gives us the means. Now what you are saying is we don't have that right because some election that may or may not have been stolen by fraud put those officials in office. Well if something is not done hope you enjoy having no food and being told to shut up. Because the first thing to go will be our rights and the second will be the food because the working class will not support a socialist agenda.

SPC Curtis Underwood - Have a nice day.

PO1 Steve Mitchell - That id not true about BLM. Yes, one of the founders is a confirmed Socialist, but they have never espoused the overthrow of our government.

You asked: is owning a MAGA hat white supremacy?
I do not believe every Trump supporter is a white supremacist. But I do believe most white supremacist support him and that he encourages them.

MSgt Steve Sweeney he doesn’t realize this. Also, he doesn’t realize that having his wife on social security is largely due to the “democratic agenda”. Republicans, and most certainly Trump, would like to severely limit social security and disability payouts touting that they are a “free ride”. When this person voted for Trump, he voted against his own self interest. Clearly this person has had a rough go of it, and I empathize. However, he drank the wrong koolaid.

SPC Erich Guenther - ..and all the troops at the Capitol have been deputized. That would make a difference. They are basically cops as it stands right now.

SFC Domingo M. - Only 2000 were Deputized and they were all MP's. Even so, highly unlikely they were allowed to act independently and had a chain of command locally with civilians at the top. NG / Pentagon is not stupid.

Did you or did you not take an oath when you entered service?
Did that oath contain "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."?
Now I ask you would the following be a legal order.
"You are ordered to confiscate assault style weapons from civilians in possession of said weapons"
For clarification there is no true meaning for assault weapon. The congress has never been able to set this meaning.
Now how do you find those that have those weapons. You would have to do so by searching their homes, business and storage places (since there is a very large number certain laws do not come into play under martial law that means no search warrants)
The constitution gives certain right to citizens among these are the right to bear arms(second amendment) and the right to due process of law(5th amendment)
The above order is illegal due to the constitutional law.
The above order is illegal because there is no set definition to assault weapon.

It is a soldiers duty to evaluate every order given. This is in the regulations.
It does not matter what legal loop wholes is used to give that order, you are required by regulations to evaluate the order to see if it is legal or not.
If the order is unlawful (meaning unconstitutional, because the constitution is supposed to be the base of all laws) then it is an illegal order.

SPC Curtis Underwood That's a complete hypothetical. If there was a law passed that assault rifles were illegal, and the military was the one who was going to do the confiscating and the judicial system went along, then it would indeed be your duty to confiscate those weapons.

The Constitution interpreter of its meaning isn't SPC Curtis Underwood, it's the Judiciary.

As I said before, if you, our anyone else isn't comfortable with that then you have no business serving because you don't believe in service.

MSgt Steve Sweeney I took an oath so I would keep my oath. Period. I'm going to continue to protect and defend the constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic, but in order to do that I'm going to have to keep my firearms. Even if I didn't believe in the changes that were made to the constitution, or I don't agree with which ever party happens to be in charge of the country, but again the hypothetical question is at what point do you think military wouldn't follow the orders given to them if it meant that they were being used as a civilian law enforcement agency against the American people whom have only refused to turn in they're firearms that they've been able to have and own since the beginning of this great nation?

SGT Thomas Paretti - I'm sure it would not be a single point but a range as the military is composed up of many people and not a homogenous mass of a single mind. The question could also be framed as at what point will people in the military refuse to honor their oath to serve and protect the Constitution. For some, that point has already passed, as seen on Jan 6th. I am willing to bet you do believe in gun control on some level. Do you agree that convicted felons should not be allowed to purchase firearms, or at a minimum, petition for the reinstatement of their rights? Do you feel private citizens should be able to own large caliber mortars, anti-aircraft cannons, or nuclear weapons? Every Constitutional right has limits and parameters. It is not a 'for or against' proposition, but rather a questions of where we mutually agree as a society and civilization on how to draw the line with individual desires and wants having equal weight as public safety concerns. People who want to draw the line at automatic weapons or what are commonly known as "assault rifles" - magazine fed weapons with the capacity for high volumes of fire, are not evil, they just have a different opinion. People who want to own and fetishize over military weapons are not evil either, they just have a different opinion. Until people turn down the temperature around the debate, nothing will be solved.

MSgt Steve Sweeney I love that you used the word fetishize, that's great. You're right though I agree there should be some gun control, the biggest thing I think that should be is that felons convicted of violent crimes and people who are mentally incapable are probably the only people whom I think they're right to own firearms should be infringed and that's only because I think either they've done something to cause they're right to own firearms to be infringed or they're mentally not capable of safely owning a firearm but aside from that though as said in the Constitution the people's right shall not be infringed. That's just my lowly opinion.

SGT Thomas Paretti - At the end of the day, it is all opinion.

Oh you mean like they are doing in DC now. They should not be doing that?

MSG Greg Kelly - Those are National Guard (today). MP's have long been detailed to Inaugurations in D.C. Keep in mind too, that D.C. is a federal area although the Posse Comitatus Act still applies, except if used for declared emergencies by the Commander-in-Chief.
Still, it is disturbing that they're saying the NG troops will be in D.C. now thru JUNE! So, we're still looking like a 3rd world country.

SSG Bill McCoy - learn something new everyday thank you

PO1 Steve Mitchell - Dumb question, really. Would never happen, and would not only violate Federal law, would be an illegal order.

SGT Steven Nelson - Wow! Why would you insult a fellow service member when he's only expressing an opinion? An a 1st Class Petty Officer (Gunner's Mate) is not a "low" rank - it's an E6 and rank doesn't come easily in the Navy. His profile indicates that he's Prior Service Army as well, so that hardly suggests he "couldn't hack it."
Sometimes the hostility here just pisses me off.

PO1 Steve Mitchell - Fortunately we aren't Venezuala. Like I said, it would be an illegal order. I wouldn't follow it. I don't think you would either.

PO1 Steve Mitchell - It would be an unlawful order to start with and POTUS does not have that kind of power to go into the states to carry it out. But I guess if we have enough spineless leadership or at least stupid, cowardly and only worried about their own position and well being it could happen in a worse case scenario. I hope the military never gets that weak. The Army being the largest I think is all ready being liberalized in my opinion with the change in the rules and regulations being enforced now. But also if a single group of people were targeted for arrest that would hit the airwaves very fast. That would start small skirmishes between the arrestors and those being arrested. A lot of people on both side would be killed. And all the tough guys on here talking crap about how they would do this and that would be hiding when the shooting starts.