6
6
0
Those who are retired and drawing a pension are still subject to discipline under the UCMJ. Enlisted swear an oath of service that includes obeying the orders of the President, officers take a different oath and it doesn’t include that clause.
Enlisted Oath:
“I, (state name of enlistee), 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)."
Officers’ Oath:
“I, [name], 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.”
The difference in oaths highlights the difference in roles and responsibilities:
Enlisted members are explicitly committing to carry out orders within the chain of command, including orders from the President as Commander in Chief and from their officers.
Officers are the leaders and decision-makers. They are expected to exercise sound judgment and bear responsibility for how orders are executed and duties are performed. Consequently, their oath focuses on faithfully discharging the duties of their office rather than simply obeying orders.
With increased responsibility comes increased accountability. One necessarily follows the other. So, while officers are expected to obey the lawful orders of the President, they are not sworn to carry out orders that in their judgment are unlawful. If their judgment is found to be in error, it’s just their career and maybe even a prison sentence depending upon the nature and scope of the offense.
Senator Kelly screwed up. He says he was reminding service members to not follow unlawful orders. But is that all he was saying? If President Trump has never given an unlawful order, why did he team up with the other members of the “Seditious Six” and make that public service announcement? Was it not to undermine cohesion within the military and sow seeds of discord? How else can one reasonably interpret his actions?
Enlisted Oath:
“I, (state name of enlistee), 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)."
Officers’ Oath:
“I, [name], 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.”
The difference in oaths highlights the difference in roles and responsibilities:
Enlisted members are explicitly committing to carry out orders within the chain of command, including orders from the President as Commander in Chief and from their officers.
Officers are the leaders and decision-makers. They are expected to exercise sound judgment and bear responsibility for how orders are executed and duties are performed. Consequently, their oath focuses on faithfully discharging the duties of their office rather than simply obeying orders.
With increased responsibility comes increased accountability. One necessarily follows the other. So, while officers are expected to obey the lawful orders of the President, they are not sworn to carry out orders that in their judgment are unlawful. If their judgment is found to be in error, it’s just their career and maybe even a prison sentence depending upon the nature and scope of the offense.
Senator Kelly screwed up. He says he was reminding service members to not follow unlawful orders. But is that all he was saying? If President Trump has never given an unlawful order, why did he team up with the other members of the “Seditious Six” and make that public service announcement? Was it not to undermine cohesion within the military and sow seeds of discord? How else can one reasonably interpret his actions?
Posted from youtu.be
Posted in these groups: 
Political Opinions
Political Opinions
Posted 1 mo ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
"Was it not to undermine cohesion within the military and sow seeds of discord?"
Hell no!
It was nothing more than a strong reminder that all military members are not required to follow unlawful orders and a subtle hint that if they do so, they could face criminal charges.
And we shall see if Trump did or did not issue any illegal orders. I believe he has walked very close to the line, or, perhaps, crossed that line.
Hell no!
It was nothing more than a strong reminder that all military members are not required to follow unlawful orders and a subtle hint that if they do so, they could face criminal charges.
And we shall see if Trump did or did not issue any illegal orders. I believe he has walked very close to the line, or, perhaps, crossed that line.
(3)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
MAJ Byron Oyler - By the way, I have heard many soldiers say "I won't do this or that" but usually when iot came down to it, they did as ordered.
(1)
(0)
LTC Matthew Schlosser
You don't actually believe that. But you'd crawl over broken glass to make excuses for anyone who takes a swipe at Donnie T.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
MSG Stan Hutchison - If they follow through, I hope I am wrong and CAPT Kelly actually defends them.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
@jeff schwager I am glad to see this post. I am out of my technical depth of understanding the nuisance of this issue. But I am following the expert breakdowns and I hope there will be one public statement of clarity.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Article 94 doesn't actually apply. The Seditious Six didn't commit mutiny. They suborned it. That's Article 82 for Kelly, he should be reduced to O-5, the last grade in which he honorably served. The rest should just get whatever the maximum fine is under 18 USC 2387, and they should join her in being expelled from Congress... unless someone actually does mutiny and points to their video as having been an influence, then I'd say reduction to E-1 and a BCD Kelly, and the ten year max for the rest. Obviously, 18 USC 2387 disqualifies the civilians from Congress, and so the Senate should expel Kelly.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google