Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 169

Thread: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

  1. #111
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    08-17-17 @ 12:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,156

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    The oath of the commissioned officer of the armed forces is to all three branches of the government -- the executive, the legislative, the judicial.
    Wow, I have absolutely no idea where that came from. Most of your last 2 posts were so full of garbage I did not even want to go through them all, but this little bit of insanity I had to.

    I present to you, the Oath of Office for a member of the Uniform Services:

    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.
    Which by the way applies for all Officers of the Uniform Services. All 7 of them.

    Nothing about the 3 branches, the President, not even anything about obeying the orders of those placed over them, as is seen in the Oath of Enlistment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    You can't have it both ways over there.

    First you said the OP and his views (shared by an entire school of thought) were being used against the current Potus only.

    Then you said since the OP was written in 2010 it was intended against Potus Obama to begin with.
    And it is obvious you have some comprehension issues.

    It is not written as an attack on any President. It is purely a non-political mental exercise into the following of orders. Nothing more and nothing less. Not that the article was biased, but how it was offered up to us in here was. It was taken entirely out of context and attempted to be used for a justification that simply did not exist.

    It was how it was presented in here that turned it's presentation into an attack. And I pointed out that by being written 7 years ago, it could be taken as an attack on the last president if that is how it is presented.

    Yea, I get it. Many people in here have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Just as many for 8 years had Obama Derangement Syndrome. But do not confuse me with one of those, any of those. Remember that I have no real political bias, and feel perfectly free to smack the crap out of both sides when they are acting like retards.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  2. #112
    Guru
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,830

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    You presented above only the oath of office of commissioned officers. And you have yet to criticize the rightwing in anything in any of your posts to any of the threads ever begun at DP and over the many years.

    The oath of officers is radically different from the oath of enlisted personnel which of course includes all NCO. Here is why, as presented by, for one, Lt Col Kenneth Keskel (USAFA; MS, University of Florida) who is chief of the Programs and Organization Branch, Directorate of Manpower and Organization, Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia:


    The military oath of office is different for enlisted and commissioned officers.

    Enlisted servicemembers swear allegiance to POTUS and the Constitution.

    Officers do not swear allegiance to POTUS – as a safeguard against a usurper commander-in-chief. They swear allegiance only to the Constitution.

    The [commissioned officer] oath requires officers to support and defend the Constitution - not the president, not the country, not the flag, and not a particular military service. Yet, at the same time, the Constitution symbolizes the president, the country, the flag, the military, and much more.20

    Because the Constitution was built on a series of checks and balances that distribute power across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, officers must give their allegiance to all three entities - despite the fact that the chain of command leads to the President. These checks and balances create an inefficiency inherent in America’s democratic system that often proves frustrating for military officers, whose environment tries to provide the most efficient and effective fighting force available. 21

    The original oath of 1789 mentioned only that one must support the Constitution: Officer Oath 1789: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.


    https://books.google.com/books?id=0v...ership&f=false

    Air University



    Here are the two radically different oaths, first the Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees to include of course all NCO) and the Oath of Office for commissioned officers, of the armed forces....


    The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):
    "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."


    Note the difference I have highlighted in bold font as pointed out and discussed by LTC Kessel who writes with the historical knowledge of the USAF Academy grad that he is. I have been quoting in this matter from Marine officers, Army officers, USAF officers and from civilian authorities who have expertise in the military and in military affairs. (My obligatory quote from a Naval officer will also be presented.)


    The Oath of Office (for officers):
    "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 or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations 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."


    You can deny this all you like but you change nothing from the present back to 1789. And you certainly do not change the Constitution. You might get some better perspective if you'd start criticizing the rightwing and do it in the way you always criticize the left of center only.
    Last edited by Tangmo; 08-12-17 at 04:03 PM. Reason: Full Denial Jacket
    "A republic ma'm if you can keep it."

  3. #113
    Guru
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,830

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    Wow, I have absolutely no idea where that came from. Most of your last 2 posts were so full of garbage I did not even want to go through them all, but this little bit of insanity I had to.

    I present to you, the Oath of Office for a member of the Uniform Services:



    Which by the way applies for all Officers of the Uniform Services. All 7 of them.

    Nothing about the 3 branches, the President, not even anything about obeying the orders of those placed over them, as is seen in the Oath of Enlistment.



    And it is obvious you have some comprehension issues.

    It is not written as an attack on any President. It is purely a non-political mental exercise into the following of orders. Nothing more and nothing less. Not that the article was biased, but how it was offered up to us in here was. It was taken entirely out of context and attempted to be used for a justification that simply did not exist.

    It was how it was presented in here that turned it's presentation into an attack. And I pointed out that by being written 7 years ago, it could be taken as an attack on the last president if that is how it is presented.

    Yea, I get it. Many people in here have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Just as many for 8 years had Obama Derangement Syndrome. But do not confuse me with one of those, any of those. Remember that I have no real political bias, and feel perfectly free to smack the crap out of both sides when they are acting like retards.

    I am still looking for your posts that assail the right. In anything. The search is indeed fruitless.

    Meanwhile, the examples from D-Day that I posted to the thread also show that the mission can be endangered and lives needlessly lost if the only consideration is obedience and the individuals involved do not exercise judgment. In fact, in the case of the D-Day invasion, judicious judgment and disobedience were central to the success of the invasion and minimized the loss of life.

    Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley discussed the evolving and organic thesis of "disciplined obedience" as it is evolving and developing in the modern and future Army. It is indeed the case across the armed forces as the OP testifies....



    The notion of ‘disciplined disobedience’ is helpful in understanding this concept. In his discussion of the future of the U.S. Army and the wars they will fight, Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley argues that disciplined disobedience will be required sometimes to "achieve the larger purpose of the mission.”
    [12]


    Military Officer Disciplined Disobedience


    “[D]isobedience, when done, must be done with trust and integrity, and you must be morally and ethically correct.” (General Mark Milley/Breaking Defense)



    Generla Milley’s remarks underline the idea that in order to be loyal or demonstrate other virtues critical to military professionalism (like trust and integrity), you may have to be disobedient.


    However, he is also addressing a critical point about how this ought to be done. It cannot be a matter of personal disagreement or preference, but rather must be done in reference to the larger purpose of the mission and the virtues of military professionalism and the community of practice. While a military person may surrender some of their personal judgment and discretion to the chain-of-command upon joining the military community of practice, he or she also must retain some degree of professional judgment and discretion. Individuals must, as circumstances and the larger mission warrant, be able to exercise this professional judgment and discretion, even if it may mean disciplined disobedience. General Milley stresses that this is not to be done casually, and that one has to be right in the judgment.

    The aim is to have soldiers who are not just obedient, but also loyal and demonstrating the other virtues of military professionalism. This will require the exercise of judgment about moral claims and commitments; what ‘moral’ means here is not person’s individual morality but rather ethical norms in the context of military professionalism. Any appeal must be to that standard.

    https://thestrategybridge.org/the-br...d-the-military



    Read the journals both the military and civilian ones.

    Expose yourself.
    Last edited by Tangmo; 08-12-17 at 04:22 PM. Reason: Any fool can obey an order.
    "A republic ma'm if you can keep it."

  4. #114
    Guru
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,830

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    The critical question is whether the military should become more like the society or vice-versa. That is, whether the society should become more like the military.

    It is in fact the case the military always adapts to become more like the society at large. As it inevitably must adapt.

    The late Dr. Samuel Huntington of Harvard wrote the definitive descriptive book of the military, i.e., what it is and what it does. He stated his belief the society should become more like the military. He lost the argument however before he conceived of the application of it to American society and culture.

    This is the conclusion of Richard M. Swain and Albert C. Pierce of the National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington DC, in their definitive work The Armed Forces Officer:


    This was the position taken in the depths of the Cold War (1957) by Samuel Huntington in The Soldier and the State. After laying out some of the differences between the profession of arms and a liberal democracy, Huntington argued that all would be well if civilians would only act more like the military.

    Taking a quite different, perhaps somewhat more nuanced and less “pure” position was Huntington’s contemporary, Morris Janowitz. In the original (1960) edition of his book, The Professional Soldier, Janowitz argued that even traditional military virtues have had to adapt to societal norms, that is, norms from outside the profession: “Military honor has had to respond . . . to changes in the social values in the society at large.”17

    History reveals that the Huntington view has not prevailed. Indeed, in a democratic society grounded on individual liberty, it was unlikely to do so. What has happened, over time, looks more like Janowitz’s notion of convergence.

    Three descriptive models have emerged that explain how changes in values and practices in the military have occurred in relation to changes in values and practices in the civilian society since World War II. Desegregation of the armed forces by Potus Truman, women in the military, homosexuals' full acceptance into the military as equal partners.


    Chapter 8 | The Officer and Society: The Horizontal Dimension > National Defense University Press > Armed Forces Officer


    The Constitution is the nation's organic law. Although the Constitution is set upon stone, the priceless document is not engraved into the stone foundation of it. The Constitution remains organic as it was intended to be organic.
    Last edited by Tangmo; 08-12-17 at 04:57 PM. Reason: AVF is however going its own way.
    "A republic ma'm if you can keep it."

  5. #115
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,171

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post

    The Constitution is the nation's organic law. Although the Constitution is set upon stone, the priceless document is not engraved into the stone foundation of it. The Constitution remains organic as it was intended to be organic.
    It was intended to be "organic".... by use of the amendment system.

    Which our government have decided "screw amendments" we can just "re-interpret" existing phrases in the constitution to get whatever we as government want.

    That is the wrong answer.

  6. #116
    Guru
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,830

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    It was intended to be "organic".... by use of the amendment system.

    Which our government have decided "screw amendments" we can just "re-interpret" existing phrases in the constitution to get whatever we as government want.

    That is the wrong answer.

    The Judicial Branch has set in stone that the Constitution is an organic entity.

    Which means the Constitution as the organic document it was written to be is not engraved in stone.

    The right would either deny the judiciary its place in the Constitutional system or allow only rightwing judges and justices. These are not options. They are rightism.
    Last edited by Tangmo; 08-12-17 at 05:03 PM. Reason: March to one single drummer only
    "A republic ma'm if you can keep it."

  7. #117
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,171

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    The Judicial Branch has set in stone that the Constitution is an organic entity.

    Which means the Constitution as the organic document it was written to be is not engraved in stone.

    The right would either deny the judiciary its place in the Constitutional system or allow only rightwing judges and justices. These are not options. They are rightism.
    The judiciary decided for itself that it gets the power to re-interpret the constitution.

  8. #118
    Guru
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,830

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    The judiciary decided for itself that it gets the power to re-interpret the constitution.

    It has been the Constitutional thingy to do since 1789.

    Youse on the right are taking an awfully long time to get used to it.

    If youse ever do get used to it. Which you of course will not do. Youse hate it.

    Sore winners youse are.
    "A republic ma'm if you can keep it."

  9. #119
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,171

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    It has been the Constitutional thingy to do since 1789.

    Youse on the right are taking an awfully long time to get used to it.

    If youse ever do get used to it. Which you of course will not do. Youse hate it.

    Sore winners youse are.
    WTF are you talking about?

    I just want us to start using the Amendment system to change the constitution instead of having a panel of politically appointed Justices "re-interpert" ****.

    That goes for whatever they decide, whether it is a boon to conservatives or liberals.

  10. #120
    Guru
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,830

    Re: Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    WTF are you talking about?

    I just want us to start using the Amendment system to change the constitution instead of having a panel of politically appointed Justices "re-interpert" ****.

    That goes for whatever they decide, whether it is a boon to conservatives or liberals.

    If you have a petition I'll consider signing it. Presuming of course a "Progressive" could sign up for the great event. It will be momentous indeed and because I like you I want to be there with youse.

    In the loooong meantime however Scotus will eventually be ruling on the constitutionality of "disciplined disobedience" and other stuff like it. Maybe you read about that or hear of it somwhere some time. Regardless, when it happens I'd expect the commander in chief to lose another one.

    Scotus will then take up the next case.

    Don't give up the ship.
    "A republic ma'm if you can keep it."

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •