While I am against the war in Syria I do think soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen bitching about going to war amounts to traffic cops complaining about writing speeding tickets, garbage men taking out trash, prison guards having to guard prison inmates, kindergarten teachers complaining about teaching 4-5 year old kids or someone else complaining about doing a job they knowingly signed up for. They signed up for a warfare occupation, that means they are in the business of going to war and if they didn't want to go to war then they shouldn't have joined the military in the first place. And last I check there was no "pick what ever war you want to fight in" sign on bonus.
Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook* - NY Daily News
Soldiers protesting military strikes against Syria are taking to Facebook to voice their opposition to a war.
"I didn't join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War," one Marine in uniform declared, in a message written on a piece of paper he held strategically to block his face and conceal his identity.
In another message, a man donning fatigues holds up a paper with "I didn't sign up to kill the poor for the rich," written out.
The Armed Forces Tea Party, a loose affiliation of veterans who align with the conservative movement, is collecting snapshots of military members holding up written statements slamming Obama's plan to ask Congress for authorization to use force against Bashar Assad's regime.
First, there isn't anything anonymous about the internet.
Second, if they feel they didn't join the military to follow the orders of their superior officers, or the POTUS (Commander-in-Chief) regardless of what those orders are, then they need to look back at the oath they swore when they joined.
Third, I don't blame them for feeling that way. I felt similarly right after I got blown up in Somalia, but that was more of a "I didn't sign up for this..." thought after being injured. It wasn't a political thought, but more of a "This isn't supposed to happen to me, it's supposed to happen to others" type thought. These folks, if they are in fact REAL members of the military, are putting themselves in legal trouble.
Fourth, the UCMJ strictly prohibits such public statements.
Lastly, there are other threads on this board that discuss this... Just FYI.
"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
They are to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is what the President is supposed to defend. Syria doesn't fit the bill, so the soldiers are in good standing to complain about this. They are American Citizens first, soldiers second.
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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 upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Have you ever taken the military oath? If so, you may want to read it again. If not, here it is:
Considering I quoted it in my post.......
It wasn't there the first time I looked at your post. Sorry for the quick draw.
As to the oath, it doesn't say to interpret and states to "Constitution of the United States against all enemies" and the POTUS is not an enemy. It also states "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." The UCMJ defines what a "lawful order" is and is not. It also defines what acceptable speech is and is not, for members of the military. The military doesn't have Free Speech.
Have you read Article 88 of the UCMJ?
No I haven't actually. However, if the POTUS orders the killing of innocents, should the military then comply because he said so? No. The Constitution comes BEFORE the President.
First, there isn't anything anonymous about the internet.
Log on to public computer, say in a library or whatnot, create a free e-mail address, use that to make a fake Facebook account w/ fake name, etc, post a comment.... and do so through a dozen proxy servers. How do they trace it back to you?
IMO, there is a difference between WHAT is posted on the internet being anonymous or not, and the PEOPLE themselves doing the posting being anonymous or not.
It wasn't there the first time I looked at your post. Sorry for the quick draw.
As to the oath, it doesn't say to interpret and states to "Constitution of the United States against all enemies" and the POTUS is not an enemy. It also states "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." The UCMJ defines what a "lawful order" is and is not. It also defines what acceptable speech is and is not, for members of the military. The military doesn't have Free Speech.
Have you read Article 88 of the UCMJ?
If the POTUS has taken overt acts against the Constitution, that makes him a domestic enemy of the document and its principles.
For example, if he routinely dishonors and violates the Fourth Amendment, he attacks the document and is by definition a domestic enemy thereof.
If he were to abolish Habeas Corpus by signing illegitimate legislative product, then both he and the legislators have violated the document, and are by definition, domestic enemies thereof.
Nobody has an obligation to obey the orders of domestic enemies of the Constitution.
From my understanding, there won't be boots on the ground. What i'm wondering is why they don't just send the drone army. Drones can't protest after all.
That all could be true, but that argument will not standup in all the Courts Martial that would follow.
The same thing happened during the Iraq War, and those poor slobs are in Fort Leavenworth even today.
There may be a few that know to do that. I doubt they all do.
While I am against the war in Syria I do think soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen bitching about going to war amounts to traffic cops complaining about writing speeding tickets, garbage men taking out trash, prison guards having to guard prison inmates, kindergarten teachers complaining about teaching 4-5 year old kids or someone else complaining about doing a job they knowingly signed up for. They signed up for a warfare occupation, that means they are in the business of going to war and if they didn't want to go to war then they shouldn't have joined the military in the first place. And last I check there was no "pick what ever war you want to fight in" sign on bonus.
Service members anonymously protest potential war against Syria on Facebook* - NY Daily News
Soldiers protesting military strikes against Syria are taking to Facebook to voice their opposition to a war.
"I didn't join the Marine Corps to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian Civil War," one Marine in uniform declared, in a message written on a piece of paper he held strategically to block his face and conceal his identity.
In another message, a man donning fatigues holds up a paper with "I didn't sign up to kill the poor for the rich," written out.
The Armed Forces Tea Party, a loose affiliation of veterans who align with the conservative movement, is collecting snapshots of military members holding up written statements slamming Obama's plan to ask Congress for authorization to use force against Bashar Assad's regime.
They are to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is what the President is supposed to defend. Syria doesn't fit the bill, so the soldiers are in good standing to complain about this. They are American Citizens first, soldiers second.
Did invading Iraq fit the bill?
Not sure how it is relevant, but the country as a whole agreed with the war in Iraq at the time if you recall. And if they did have WMD and WERE training Al Queda then yes, it did fit the bill.
Though I largely agree with what everyone on here has said I do think it's worth asking when it is appropriate for a soldier to refuse orders. At one point is that judgement call necessary or legitimate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?