6
6
0
It has been over 30 years since I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. This oath is as sacred to me today as it was yesterday.
Today, it seems that our Individual Rights are under attack. That said, If given an order that violates the liberties afforded by the Bill of Rights should Commanders and or Troops feel obligated to follow it?
Today, it seems that our Individual Rights are under attack. That said, If given an order that violates the liberties afforded by the Bill of Rights should Commanders and or Troops feel obligated to follow it?
Posted in these groups: 
Principles
Principles
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 36
2
2
0
I'm not on active duty anymore and I actually retire from the reserves in a week, but I have said no to this my entire career. Even though we swear to follow the lawful orders of those positions above us, including the president, none of us work for any particular man and his agendas. Any order that violates our oath to uphold and defend the constitution is unlawful, no matter whose mouth it comes out of, and should not only not be followed, but service members have an obligation to stop it from happening otherwise. Though it is our job to get the mission do and follow orders, we all have a moral obligation to check all orders for lawfulness and its compatibility with the Constitution (for most orders this takes about 3 seconds and doesn't require anything more then a little common sense).
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
OK, I'll be the first Officer to jump on this land mine.
Soldiers: Soldiers have to follow orders. So As I see it they would have to follow the orders of those above them.
Before anybody jumps in with "Remember the Nazi's following orders isn't an excuse."
Let me remind you, that all those folks on trial were Officers, not Enlisted soldiers of the German Army.
Which brings me to part 2; Officers:
Officers have a duty, not to the President, but to the Constitution. If the order given, no matter the source, is unlawful (violates the constitution), Immoral, or unethical The Officer has a duty, to not only NOT follow the order, but to stop the order from going further.
In some instances this means confronting the source of the order, and sometimes it means relieving a superior officer. Neither is a desirerable position for an Officer (at any level)
This responsibility is one of the reasons Officers have a heavier load of responsibility.
Soldiers: Soldiers have to follow orders. So As I see it they would have to follow the orders of those above them.
Before anybody jumps in with "Remember the Nazi's following orders isn't an excuse."
Let me remind you, that all those folks on trial were Officers, not Enlisted soldiers of the German Army.
Which brings me to part 2; Officers:
Officers have a duty, not to the President, but to the Constitution. If the order given, no matter the source, is unlawful (violates the constitution), Immoral, or unethical The Officer has a duty, to not only NOT follow the order, but to stop the order from going further.
In some instances this means confronting the source of the order, and sometimes it means relieving a superior officer. Neither is a desirerable position for an Officer (at any level)
This responsibility is one of the reasons Officers have a heavier load of responsibility.
(2)
(0)
SGT Gary Frank
2LT,
Yes, that is exactly the point. Under what circumstances is an order deemed "Unlawful". I posed my question not to discuss the obvious answers regarding Nazi style "I was Following Orders", but to inspire a much deeper discussion regarding the legitimacy of an order that would contradict the Oath We all swore to up hold. That being, to defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. A foreign enemy is very easily identified, but what constitutes a domestic enemy? That too should be easily answered, but what if that enemy is identified not by action, but by decree? Many may not be able to make that distinction so easily.
(4)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
The oath of enlistment and the oath we took as officers differs in wording but the meaning is the same. Despite the absence of "obey the orders..." in the officer oath, we also must follow the same rules. Likewise, despite the fact that the enlisted oath says "obey the orders..." they also have the same requirement to disobey an unlawful order.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I would wonder the same, as long as it doesn't violate the Geneva convention, commanders would find it very difficult to answer this one, if the orders come from the president of the US, and it appears to be illegal I would see impeachment in that future.
But for me if I were a commander I would have to wait for that order to be given first before I would be able to give a truthful and accurate answer.
(2)
(0)
SGT Gary Frank
I like your answer, but in this case the Geneva Convention doesn't enter into the equation.
Our Bill of Rights does not extend beyond our shores. The question is designed to make everyone reflect upon the oath they made upon entering military service and what that oath means.
Our Bill of Rights does not extend beyond our shores. The question is designed to make everyone reflect upon the oath they made upon entering military service and what that oath means.
(2)
(0)
Can you give some context to this. It sounds simple but to what point would an Active Duty member be doing to give an order to regular citizen? Federal Troops really shouldn't be used on domestic soil unless the most severe situation would have occurred. The only ones that really can operate domestically are the National Guards. If they get called out they there usually is a State of Emergency. After all you were in the National Guard. You should realize this.
And what right would be violated? In Hurricane Katrina soldiers disbursed crowds. They could say that their right to peacefully assemble was violated.
I don't think this is a question really. It is more or less a nod to the notion of the Government will try to take your rights and attack the people.
And what right would be violated? In Hurricane Katrina soldiers disbursed crowds. They could say that their right to peacefully assemble was violated.
I don't think this is a question really. It is more or less a nod to the notion of the Government will try to take your rights and attack the people.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
At what time did we as a military force did we forget that we swore an oath the CONSTITUTION not the government. There are times when troops will be needed for certain things but the military is not a police force. That's why we have police forces around the country. Keeping the peace is their job. Not ours. If I were ordered to violate a citizens constitutional rights then I must admit that I would deny that order. Regardless of consequences. We protect these people from our enemies. We do not get involved in their skirmishes or their home grown problems. The active duty is a fighting machine. Not a referee. For instance. If I were ordered to go house to house to take someone's firearms then I would say no. Or tell someone they can't speak against our potus. It's not my job to do that. They have the right to bear arms and maintain an active militia as well as freedom of speech. That's just my take on it all.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Somehow which I can't quite figure out yet, when I posted my comment it literally posted to everyone's question.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Just by joining the military you are surrendering some constitutional rights, and by the same measure, civilians who do certain things, have constitutional rights violated daily in accordance with the very same constitution.
So, if an order is legal, and results on some citizen losing some rights, so be it. Fine with me.
So, if an order is legal, and results on some citizen losing some rights, so be it. Fine with me.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Um. No. That would be an illegal order. I took an oath to defend the Constitutiion and the country against all threats foreign and DOMESTIC.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Tommy Johnson
I beg to respectfully differ with you. I can think of many scenarios, wherein following orders may infringe upon or violate the Constitutional Rights of other United States citizens, even to the extent that they endured physical harm or death, when the orders protected the American government, key government or military officials, or the life and liberty of others.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Absolutely not. But I would make damn sure it was an illegal order before I refuse to obey it.
Just because I may not agree with an order, or it may be unethical, it may not necessarily be illegal.
Just because I may not agree with an order, or it may be unethical, it may not necessarily be illegal.
(1)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
We promise to defend the Constitution so obeying an order that violated a Constitutional right would go against the vows we took. I agree with PO1 Miller that I would make sure it was an illegal order first.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
SSgt (Join to see)
CPT Ahmed Faried If you feel this is a duplicate topic, as an admin, you can roll it into one of the previous ones...
Just saying...
Just saying...
(2)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
@SSgt Justyn A. not worth it. There are too many. Beside some folks are more interested in points than actual worthy topics.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I am waiting for another R and hopefully rectify the problems of today. Like Reagan did.
(1)
(0)
SGT Gary Frank
I completely understand Larry, unfortunately there isn't anyone that could fit into Reagan's socks let alone his shoes.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google