[thebohunk]

Only came here to remind everybody this is why we should not respond to Mauserboy.

 

[thebohunk]

I can't help but get the impression that Mauserboy thinks that the every individual in the military is out to get him. Under orders of the big government/corporations military industrial complex establishment.

Can we get any MORE vague?

 

[thebohunk]

I always thought military personnel took an oath to the office of the Commander in Chief. Perhaps those members here who have actually taken that oath might be able to chime in.

You say the military is not out to get anyone? The nature of your posts and threads seem to indicate otherwise. What are you afraid of then? Or perhaps you could better explain the title of this thread?

BTW, saying bad economic times are coming is like saying it's going to rain sometime.

 

[thebohunk]

Is Paulville kinda like Jonestown?

Anytime I hear about "separatists" type people I it just makes me laugh. Utopia is impossible.

 

[thebohunk]

Absolutely NOT. The oath i to uphold and defend the Constitution and bear true allegiance to the same. And to obey the LAWFUL (emphasis supplied) orders of the Commander in Chief and such other lawful superiors as may be issued. I repeat the oath is NOT to the President as Commander-in-Chief, only to obey lawful orders originating from him. Note the aprt about "lawful". The duty of obedience is limited to lawful orders.

Thank you for clearing that up Clyde, I wasn't sure the exact language. But isn't obeying lawful orders from the Commander in Chief, in a sense taking an oath to the orders of that office? Or am I misinterpreting it alltogethor?

 

[thebohunk]

Confederatecaptain got the wording closer to right than my quick answer - but the obligation to obey awful orders of lawfully appointed superiors is NOT by any means the same as taking an oath to an office 9or office holder). One of the things taht got the Germans (I speak of their militray) twisted up in WWII was the requirement that they take a PERSONAL oath to the Fuhrer. We don't do that, ours is to the Constitution. The obligation you accept (explicitly) as aprt of it to obey LAWFUL (I emphasize that for a reason) orders from your lawfully appointed superiors is an obligation that comes with the oath to accept, support and defend the Constitution. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is there and important.

By the way, the UCMJ actually imposes a duty, subject to criminal sanctions, if you do NOT disobey UNLAWFUL orders...

Isn't LAWFUL open to interpretation? Could Gen. Petraeus refuse to fight in Iraq if he felt the orders were unlawful? I know he wouldn't, I'm just asking if it is open to debate?

What's the UCMJ?

 

[thebohunk]

Clyde, thanks for the info. You never disappoint.

 

[thebohunk]

Of course Saddam had WMDs. We have the reciepts to prove it.