My fellow veterans will no doubt agree

[markbark]

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

I took that oath 42 years ago -- still holds.

But I'll bet the weasels pretending to be lawyers in the administration will say that "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States" takes precedence over "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice"

They will, of course, be wrong.
Starting in Basic Training it was drilled into us that it was not only your right, but your obligation, your DUTY to refuse unlawful orders.

"I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg. It won't work at any future proceedings. I feel that a vast majority of the armed forces know this. Those that don't will learn quickly.

[unweird]

1. No Doubt Here

I swore that oath 47 years ago myself.

[iluvtennis]

21. 47 years for me as well. n/t

[maptap22]

2. 42 years for me too

[Emile]

3. I took that same oath in Chicago in 1969.

[BH liberal]

4. This Vietnam veteran...

sees the Orange Menace as an enemy, domestic that we swore to defend America against. Where are the patriots who will purge this demented, dangerous dictator wannabee?

[Tetrachloride]

5. Before the Constitution, there was

The Ten Commandments
The Parable of The Good Samaritan
Tao Te Ching
The Art of War
The Sermon on the Mount


More recently
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
The United Nations Rights of the Child
The Declaration of my father to a local drug user
and Jules’ Ezekiel 25:17.

[Aristus]

6. Took the oath in 1986.

Coming up on forty years…

I’ll never forget our drill sergeants drilling it into us the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and that we had an unshakable duty to disobey unlawful orders.

[BOSSHOG]

7. 18 July 1972

Still under oath

[pfitz59]

8. The Officer Oath omits the part about obeying orders.

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

[democrank]

9. Always good to hear from our veterans.

Thanks to every one of you.

[Ping Tung]

10. 1961 USMC

I vaguely recall mumbling "I do" or "I will". I don't ever recall being told not to follow orders.

[Puppyjive]

11. I knew it

And they also drilled into our brains that we would never be asked to fight other Americans.

[BH liberal]

12. The Officer's Code does not need to spell out every contingency...

Since following orders that would go against the Constitution would indeed not be defending or upholding it, the directive to reject illegal orders is implied in the Officer's Code even if not specifically stated.

[Augiedog]

13. 1968 for me in Milwaukee

[MarineCombatEngineer]

14. This fellow Veteran agrees.

I still live by that Oath of Enlistment, it's the driving force of my life.
MGySgt Dware-Ret.
USMC
1964-1999.

[Clouds Passing]

15. Thank you markbark 🩵

[JohnnyRingo]

16. I think when faced with gunning down neighbors and friends they will refuse.

...at least most of them, and that's the real issue. Trump has used the phrase "illegal protests" and says soldiers are in major cities as a "training exercise".

The concern is what will happen if, given the order from Pete Hegseth to use live ammo on dissenters, what will happen? Even though Homeland Security agents are brutal against immigrants, I'm optimistic that shooting citizens will not happen. At least not twice.

[BH liberal]

17. Shooting citizens already happened...

at least once. Remember Kent State!

[JohnnyRingo]

28. I grew up 20 miles from KSU

I don't see that as permission to do it again.
It left a scar on the nation that should never heal.

I see what you're saying though. They had live ammo and followed orders to use it and some[/i ] did fire. I have to believe that most of those NG soldiers were just as appalled as the students they faced.

[Wounded Bear]

18. July, 1970, so 55 years ago for me...

Still in effect as far as I'm concerned.

[paleotn]

19. 45 years. It hasn't changed.

When the regime has to go to the same lengths Dubya's DoJ did to scrape together weak, paper thin justifications, chances are high you're being ordered to do the wrong thing. Just saying.

https://wapo.st/48vOkOY

And DoJ opinions will change significantly when this regime falls. Something to keep in mind.

[DemMedic]

20. Same here!

[70sEraVet]

22. Hegseth wants soldiers who have no other allegiances than to the Orange One

As far as this Administration is concerned, the UCMJ, US Constitution and Geneva Convention are just Woke trash.
Yes, markbark, I agree with you.

[Jerry2144]

23. I took thosee oaths two times, enlisted an officer

I don't remember ever getting released from them.

[patphil]

24. Yes, that was made abundantly clear when I was in the military.

The military defends the country for the sake of all the people who live here.

[Mr.Bee]

25. A Senator Just Recieved a Bomb Threat

Can anyone answer what constitutes an Illegal Order?

[Timewas]

26. 1958 for me n/t

[Jacson6]

27. The problem is that some private in the army is not going to stick his neck out.

When I was in as a private I saw one guy stick his neck out. He got an non judicial punishment losing rank. He was a private until his discharge date two years later.

The movie Casualities of War gives a good example what happens to snitches in the service. And of course there is the My Lai incident where a convicted LT got a full pardon from the president.

[TomSlick]

29. Long years ago, I taught Law of War classes to basic trainees and Second Lieutenants in their officer basic course,

The obligation to disobey unlawful orders - which was defined as orders to commit a crime - was always clear.

What I tried to make clear was that obedience to orders was no defense if they murdered a civilian, enemy prisoner of war, etc. I told them they would prosecuted for murder, not a violation of the laws of war.

I think the basic trainees were mostly asleep. The young Lieutenants were completely engaged in the discussions.