Would you obey an illegal or unconstitutional order?

Nice! Sometimes education can be expensive, wonder what the SGM's next FitRep looked like?

I wasn't born yet for this one, but I kinda wish I was!

"Twist everything" is euphemistic, even "subvert everything" isn't strong enough. It seems "Destroy EVERYTHING our nation reveres" is closer.

1LT John Neil Jednoralski and you, sir, have misplaced your proper oath.
(Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. He is a commentator.)

1LT John Neil Jednoralski and you, sir, are the problem. Just like I sat on my hands while ex-POTUS Trump took office WITHOUT EVER COMPLYING with the EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, you must sit on yours now unless you are that hungry to spill American blood.

Dude, words matter. It's not like you're Trump on Twitter playing footsies with Putin while spewing word salad that *everyone* in the whole ~world~ knows is utter nonsense except for Breitbart, Fox, Newsmax, and OAN followers.

People here read your words and believe you.

PFC Kimberly Staiti - I have not misplaced my 'Oath'. I am a 'OATH KEEPER'.
You need to review your Oath
You are to obey ALL officers above you !!

PFC Kimberly Staiti - You are a Socialist Commies that want to censor Free Speech !!
I assume you will never go above PFC. What is your education or lack there of??

Where in the Constitution is it forbidden that US troops be assigned under the command of an officer from another country's service? It doesn't. And nowhere in the oath of enlistment does it read that you can't be required to follow the orders of a foreign military officer. The enlisted oath says, "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". Nothing in that oath says that an officer appointed over someone has to be a US military officer, so unless it's a violation of military regs or the UCMJ (which it isn't), a service member can be assigned to a unit that is under the command of an officer of another country's military, and because of that assignment that foreign military officer is an "officer appointed over" the member. While the oath requires that one "support and defend the Constitution", it doesn't say that everything one is required to do be in support and defense of the Constitution (imagine how it would go over if a soldier were to say, "I'm sorry sergeant, digging latrines doesn't do anything to support and defend the Constitution"). So the order assigning him to that duty was lawful, and he was rightfully found guilty of disobeying that lawful order. There is a long history of US troops under the command of foreign officers - you might recall that US troops served under a French officer, Lafayette, during the American Revolution.

You are correct sir, however, in the oath it states I will obey the orders of the President and Officers appointed over me according to the UCMJ, but foreign officers do not adhere to or even know the UCMJ. Of course there are situations where there is a wash out, such as multi-national command in support operations, but the soldier(s) will still be assigned and accountable to the U.S. unit and command. To be ordered and assigned to and under a foreign command leaves our soldiers in precarious situations. These foreign officers do NOT have to follow the Constitution of the U.S., they do NOT have to follow laws of the UCMJ, our soldiers assigned to a foreign command is subject to their military law, which we may know nothing about, and most of all, it leaves these service members vulnerable to unlawful orders. The values of our military leadership, rules and regulations may not be the same as other countries. If the SMs are issued orders that would normally be unlawful or questionable in U.S. commands and he/she disobeys, they are subject to discipline. If the order is carried out and something goes awry, I definitely do not trust a foreign commander to take responsibility for some American Spec. 4, and guess who's going to hang. I served in a multi-national force in Ukraine, and I'll tell you sir, there were some crazy situations, and I thank God that I wasn't involved with any of it. Yes, I do understand the service of soldiers under Lafayette, however, that was also back in the day where there were no rules of engagement, no Hague Convention Laws, U.N. Laws, and all of the other Humanitarian Laws. I believe that with all of the politicization directing the way wars are fought and directed, that it really puts our SMs in bad situations. What if the U.S. Rules of Engagement are different - more restrictive than the country which we are assigned? and other such issues. I would have much less issue with being assigned to a single country support, but an assignment to under the U.N.? It's not even a country, it's an organization. As a ridiculous example, yet, not completely unrealistic, under the U.N., they can put me under command of some Russian commander. That is where the great percentage of my beef occurs. Thank you for your response sir, I truly appreciate the time and explanation you provided, and gave forth a nice piece of info to chew on.

MSG Stan Rollins enlighten me: please tell me the historical instances in which martial law was simply enacted on a whim after any president took office.

MSG Stan Rollins While you attempt to find such instances, I'm going to leave this right here for when you finally feel like admitting the insanity and idiocy of your statement.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-declarations-martial-law-united-states#other

Convincing yourself an order is illegal or immoral is easy. The standard for combing a court martial board is a different animal. That board is there to defend the order you must convince them and if you ain’t got dead non-combatants you are going to loose.

LTC Raymond Buenteo that's a completely separate issue. Absolutely none of that refutes my initial, simple statement. However, just to address your argument, proving the unconstitutionality of an order would be rather easy. So, too, would it be to prove an order to be illegal. Immoral was never even part of the conversation, as we would then have to have a philosophical argument about the nature of morality.