Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by berdon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

berdon

From what I have been told (specific to the US army):

- Enlisted swear oaths to the constitution and President

- Officers swear an oath to the constitution

I’ve only been told this, I don’t claim to know.

View on HN

You can just google the oaths that people take.

- enlisted: https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

> 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).

- officers: https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html

> 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; 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. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)

Take a look at the Oath Keepers or the 3%ers and let me know if you think they are going to do the right thing here.

They took an oath to protect their interests. That’s it and that’s all.

I'll grant you that these militias are well-armed and have sketchy loyalties, but if the US military decided they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution, against Trump, they'd crush the Oath Keepers and their ilk.

Many of the members of those militias are themselves military or ex-military. Which already tells you volumes about how likely it is that all of the US military would "decide they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution". Besides, those guys don't think of what they are doing as contradicting the constitution - quite the opposite! They are very obviously wrong, but that has never stopped fanatics from believing in their creed.

The real question, anyway, is not whether the military will obey Trump's illegal orders, should he issue them. It's whether the military would do something to stop the militias if Trump lets them off the leash with an explicit mandate.

And my concern is that most of the lower-ranking officers and people below them will prefer to sit it out. Because if they do something, and it's not enough, they are all looking at actual treason charges and likely death sentences.

Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news?

Some light reading --> https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-a...

But it won't be their family members, in most cases. It will be some despicable "cultural Marxists" or even more abstract "terrorists". And the rapes? Fake news.

Which does match what GP said. Enlisted swear to defend the constitution and obey the president. No limitation to lawful orders or stated precedence between the too. Commissioned officers don't swear to obey the president

What do you mean "no limitation to lawful orders"? That's what "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" means. Article 92 is pretty explicit about what constitutes a lawful order.

It’s explicit about following orders according to the UCMJ, and the UCMJ clearly defines what constitutes a lawful order that must be followed.

So, it’s transitive, but the enlisted oath is limited to lawful orders.

They swear that they will obey lawful orders from their commanders, all the way up to the President.

Who decides whether order is lawful or not?

A soldier comes to their own assessment then a court martial decides later on if they agree. Just like every other form of action: do what you believe is within bounds, then find out later if the courts agree

> Who decides whether order is lawful or not?

The individual. If your boss orders you to do something illegal, it’s up to you to be sceptical and do your research. That’s the only way it can work without converting a part of the population to drones.

If the order is wrong, it's your fault for failing to know that.

If the order is valid, it's your fault for questioning it.

You‘re supposed to evaluate it in order to determine whether it’s wrong or not.

I believe that's exactly what the GP was saying.

There are military lawyers for this. I seem to recall that Trump fired them last month.

Lawyers provide legal advice but are not judges.

By lawyer, I meant that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General%27s_Cor... . They also serve as judges, as far as I understand.

You don't have lawyer in the trenches. You have an order, if you don't obey, you might be executed at place.

Real life is not like the movies. You aren't executed for disobeying or refusing an order in the US military.

> You have an order, if you don't obey, you might be executed at place.

Uhhhh... not in the US (or any western) military you won't.

But if you're a soldier of the Klingon Empire, you might.

So why post it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com