Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Breaking Bad ?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:23 PM

If you are sworn to uphold the law, does it void your oath if the law is changed?  If you have sworn to deffend the constitution do you smite the ones that poo upon it?

 



#2 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:55 PM

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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."

 

This is the military oath of enlistment. Nowhere does it mention upholding any laws. It does say you will obey the orders of the President/Commander in Chief and the officers appointed over you.

 

Now, you are required to follow all "lawful" orders and you can go to jail for disobeying lawful orders. There have been countless individuals who found themselves in hot water because they refused to carry out an order they perceived to be unlawful. This is why they get in trouble- it is not up to the individual carrying out the orders to question said orders before carrying them out. You must first carry out the order and then report your misgivings and concerns to the next superior in the chain of command. Simply refusing to carry out an order just because you think it's "unlawful" will certainly land you in front of the man for refusing to obey a direct order (issued by a commissioned officer) or a lawful order (issued by a senior enlisted person).



#3 The Pieyed Piper

The Pieyed Piper

    growing wild

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 03:08 PM

Is this about weed laws?



#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,639 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:16 PM

The only lawful orders come from a Republican non Kenyan president duh

#5 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,923 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:25 PM

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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."

 

This is the military oath of enlistment. Nowhere does it mention upholding any laws. It does say you will obey the orders of the President/Commander in Chief and the officers appointed over you.

 

Now, you are required to follow all "lawful" orders and you can go to jail for disobeying lawful orders. There have been countless individuals who found themselves in hot water because they refused to carry out an order they perceived to be unlawful. This is why they get in trouble- it is not up to the individual carrying out the orders to question said orders before carrying them out. You must first carry out the order and then report your misgivings and concerns to the next superior in the chain of command. Simply refusing to carry out an order just because you think it's "unlawful" will certainly land you in front of the man for refusing to obey a direct order (issued by a commissioned officer) or a lawful order (issued by a senior enlisted person).

 

Talk about robotic...

 



#6 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:30 PM

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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."

This is the military oath of enlistment. Nowhere does it mention upholding any laws. It does say you will obey the orders of the President/Commander in Chief and the officers appointed over you.

Now, you are required to follow all "lawful" orders and you can go to jail for disobeying lawful orders. There have been countless individuals who found themselves in hot water because they refused to carry out an order they perceived to be unlawful. This is why they get in trouble- it is not up to the individual carrying out the orders to question said orders before carrying them out. You must first carry out the order and then report your misgivings and concerns to the next superior in the chain of command. Simply refusing to carry out an order just because you think it's "unlawful" will certainly land you in front of the man for refusing to obey a direct order (issued by a commissioned officer) or a lawful order (issued by a senior enlisted person).


no, no, no

that's the backwards old school thinking that caused so many war crimes in the first days of Iraq/Afghanistan.
It is your duty to disobey unlawful orders, then report them. The Nuremberg defense is not valid.

#7 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 04 January 2014 - 06:13 PM

no, no, no

that's the backwards old school thinking that caused so many war crimes in the first days of Iraq/Afghanistan.
It is your duty to disobey unlawful orders, then report them. The Nuremberg defense is not valid.

 

I sure hope that's just sarcasm I'm missing....

 

"It is your duty to disobey unlawful orders..."

It is not your decision whether an order by your superior is lawful or not. That decision is made by the superiors of the person issuing the orders once the original order is reported as possibly being unlawful.

 

 

 



#8 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:31 PM

Is this about weed laws?

 

Amoung others.  Well, thanks for the insights. Oath dont mean poo now. That's what i am getting here. No respect for any such oaths to his country.  Don't make a poo anyway.  We gonna do what we gonna do. Yea, yea, I know you boys watchin obama.  *** u. A thousands post on a thousand message boards.



#9 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:59 PM

I sure hope that's just sarcasm I'm missing....

"It is your duty to disobey unlawful orders..."
It is not your decision whether an order by your superior is lawful or not. That decision is made by the superiors of the person issuing the orders once the original order is reported as possibly being unlawful.

maybe in the navy, where swabbing the deck as hardcore of an order there is...

But in land warfare, when your comrades' and civilians' lives are on the line, you are required to ignore unlawful orders.

"I was just following orders" is not, and never has been, a valid alibi.

#10 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 05 January 2014 - 11:08 AM

maybe in the navy, where swabbing the deck as hardcore of an order there is...

But in land warfare, when your comrades' and civilians' lives are on the line, you are required to ignore unlawful orders.

"I was just following orders" is not, and never has been, a Ivalid alibi.

 

I'm pretty sure just by reading this you've obviously never served.

 

The oath of enlistment quoted above and Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to all services, there isn't a separate version for each branch of service.
 

"I was just following orders" is not, and never has been, a valid alibi."

Has been a very valid alibi in countless cases where it was determined the orders were unlawful. The many soldiers who took part in the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam were not convicted of any charges, but two of the three principals issuing the orders were is but one of the  more famous cases in recent history.

 

"maybe in the navy, where swabbing the deck as hardcore of an order there is..."

Yeah, tell that to the pilots and aircrews on carriers, SEAL Teams, SAR crews, etc. You obviously have no fugging clue.



#11 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 01:13 PM

Calley got his sentence overturned on appeal because he somehow successfully argued that he believed infants and toddlers were enemies. Several in his platoon refused to obey his orders.

since he was told that only "the enemy" would be in the village, his honest belief that there were no innocent civilians in the village exonerates him of criminal responsibility for their deaths; and, finally, that his actions were in the heat of passion caused by reasonable provocation.


Although ordered by Calley to shoot, Private First Class James J. Dursi refused to join in the killings, and Specialist Four Robert E. Maples refused to give his machine gun to Calley for use in the killings

http://law2.umkc.edu...i/MYL_uscma.htm

And Meadlo (the only one proven to participate) did not agree to testify against Calley until he was given immunity.
http://law2.umkc.edu...myl_bmeadlo.htm

"I was just following orders" does not apply to the Calley case.

But it did apply to the Abu Ghraib case, where Soldiers were "following orders" from Intelligence officers. Did their defense work?

#12 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 05 January 2014 - 02:21 PM

Again, 22 men were officially charged in the My Lai killings. Only the two issuing the orders were convicted. Period. The other 20 men who were using weapons and killed people were not convicted. What happened during the appeals process was after the fact.

 

If you honestly believe in the Abu Ghraib case that a few lowly E3's and E4's reservists with less than 3 years of service were supposedly carrying out all they were accused of with no one above them knowing, you're sadly mistaken and uninformed. There was no one at Abu Ghraib junior in rank to these people- everyone was senior in rank to them. And you're telling me nobody knew a thing about what was going on? And you failed to mention the broken chain of command where soldiers were taking orders from civilian intelligence (and therefore could not be investigated by the military in their role). The Abu Ghriab case is the exception, not the rule. If anything, Abu Ghriab has served as a textbook case of politics and the military at odds creating a broken chain of command, a convoluted mission statement and a giant question as to who was issuing orders to who.

 

You'd be every surprised that not many real "orders" are issued in the heat of the moment. Training kicks in and you do what needs to be done to protect your brother and yourself. The orders are the mission itself, not what happens when the mission is being accomplished. Military actions (when people start shooting) are governed by the Rules of Engagement (ROE) which are reviewed and modified for each mission. ROE tells you when you can start shooting, not normally orders issued by someone else. 

 

When you begin speaking to military actions involving civilian and military lives, you're speaking to ROE, not military regulations or orders.

 

 



#13 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,009 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 05:18 PM

Cpt. Medina was acquitted of all charges. According to the wikipedia page, Calley was the only person convicted.

The Nuremberg principles affirmed that "following orders" is not a valid argument. the Nuremberg principles were adopted by the DOD in 1953.

#14 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 05 January 2014 - 07:36 PM

Cpt. Medina was acquitted of all charges. According to the wikipedia page, Calley was the only person convicted.

The Nuremberg principles affirmed that "following orders" is not a valid argument. the Nuremberg principles were adopted by the DOD in 1953.

 

Again....and again.... 26 soldiers had charges brought against them for their roles. Whether via Courts-Martial, NJP or other judicial processes, none of the 25 remaining were convicted.

 

"Twenty six soldiers were charged with criminal offenses, but only Second Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader in C Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest."

 

And I'm tired of arguing a point with which you have no real life experience and nothing beyond an idealist opinion about.



#15 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:16 PM




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com