Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Per section 3331, Title 5, United States Code the officer's oath of office.

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.

for national guard officers per National Guard Bureau Form 337:

I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Not to mention you specifically cited a difference between officers and enlisted men on the heart of the oath both officers and enlisted men take, that we defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We've cited chapter and verse. You've blown smoke. I know plenty of officers too, I'm a flight crew member, jawing with officers is one of the privileges we get as flyers. I don't know anything about 360 joc... err drone "pilots" but it's a rare man or woman in this man's Marine Corps who'd fire on US citizens just on order. I'm not sure where you serve, if you serve, but it's a pretty screwed up place.

Not to mention the event he's referencing was a CIA mission...

Well yeah the CIA is bunch of murderous scum bags. That's why they joined the CIA

This is getting ridiculous. Yes, I was wrong about the oath of enlistment, and I don't see how that is relevant. I'm so sorry I led anyone astray concerning that issue.

The Oath of Officer you are quoting... THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. They violated their oath of office. Are you not aware that this going on? That predator strikes are targeting US Citizens, in violation of the due process clause of the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights?

Seriously, have you not heard about this? Who did you think was flying these Predators that fried those US citizens? Santa? No, Air Force officers. Who I assume took the oath of office.

My Point-- the constitution forbids execution of a US citizen without due process. Do you agree?

Everyone in the military swears to defend the constitution. Do you agree?

Someone in the military is executing US Citizens via hellfire off a Predator drone, in violation of their oath. Do you agree?


What is the hang up here? And what is with the personal attacks? Seriously.


Edit-- The CIA mission is executed by USAF assets and personell. See also SR-71, U2, A-12, basically every CIA aviation program besides Plan Columbia and Air America... This isn't just a slam on the Air Force either, I'm sure if the topography allowed use of Tomahawks the Navy would be all over it too.

Why the hostility, only because you just came in here claiming to speak from a position of knowledeable authority, and then went on to state I was a mindless killing machine.

Tends to ruffle my feathers.

Then I would have claimed I was one, and pretty much every male member of my family was one. Good thing I didn't actually say anything like that. I said the military ran shady stuff just like the entire rest of the government. That doesn't make any individual in the military necessarily a bad dude. In this entire time, I have called out specifically, and exactly one group of people- senior (flag level) officers. Are you telling me that you have always felt that they are trustworthy and have your best interest and the defense of the nation at heart?
Why would I insult other military people? That doesn't even make sense.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm calling BS on your claim of enlistment, if your that ignorant of the oath you took, twice before heading to boot.

I find it fascinating that the first instance I've seen of someone questioning someone else's claim of military service comes in a thread where they're indirectly critical of the military.

One thing that should probably be pointed out

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.

Note the underlined.

This oath doesn't prevent you from firing upon US citizens if they have been determined to be an enemy of the Constitution. And heck, that definition could be taken quite loosely.

 Grey Templar wrote:
One thing that should probably be pointed out

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.

Note the underlined.

This oath doesn't prevent you from firing upon US citizens if they have been determined to be an enemy of the Constitution. And heck, that definition could be taken quite loosely.

I think that your reply misses the basic point that the military is supposed to be only for times of war, thus the oath is designed to war-time enemies. Where things have gotten muddled is how the government since Nixon(could be argued since Kennedy) has steadily passed laws that have sought to circumvent the established procedure for either declaring war or use of military force.

1)It was Nixon that declared "War on Crime", which laid the ground work for equipping Leo.s with military training, weapons and armour.
2)Reagan declared "War on Drugs" which led to all branches of the military(Coast Guard, Navy. Marines, Army and Air Force) to be used in drug interdiction throughout the Gulf of Mexico and both Central & South America.
3)Both Bush #1. and Clinton expanded these roles.
4)Then along comes Bush #2 with his "War on Terror" and "The Patriot Act"
5)Finally, we have Obama with the "NDAA"

The big problem here are 1, 2 & 4. Declaring war upon the easily redefined concepts of Crime, Drugs and Terror. These result in nebulous unending wars that are easily redefined/expanded by new legislation and in some cases additions to the policies of certain governmental agencies.

What I'm getting at is that we have an oath that was designed for soldiers operating in a traditional war between nations, yet the US has enacted laws and policies that have expanded the military's role to the point of them being regularly used in what are viewed as non-war/non-traditional roles.

Maybe its time to do one of the following:
a) re-write the oath
b)clearly redefine the contitutional definition of war and setting strict guidelines for how such is declared
or
c)redefine what exactly is the military's role particularly those concerning interaction with civilians

Personally, I'm in favor of b) Clearly redefining the contitutional definition of war and setting strict guidelines for how such is declared.
The reason I feel such is that the various legal and ethical grey areas(conflicts) create to much ambiguity and room for exploitation. This, in turn, leaves many feeling that the government operates outside of the constitution which in turn leads to distrust.

Though, "c) clearly redefining the military's role" should also be done. This could help help cut down on spending and jurisdictional conflicts.


Just a thought

 Captain Avatar wrote:

1, 2 & 4. Declaring war upon the easily redefined concepts of Crime, Drugs and Terror. These result in nebulous unending wars that are easily redefined/expanded by new legislation and in some cases additions to the policies of certain governmental agencies.

Are you under the impression that such "wars" are anything other than rhetorical?

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm calling BS on your claim of enlistment, if your that ignorant of the oath you took, twice before heading to boot.

I find it fascinating that the first instance I've seen of someone questioning someone else's claim of military service comes in a thread where they're indirectly critical of the military.

We'd have never stood for that sort of in-service infighting back when I was a soldier in the Marine Core.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Then I would have claimed I was one

Maybe I'm misreading or misunerstanding you but didn't you state;

 Silverthorne wrote:
I'm active duty

 dogma wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

1, 2 & 4. Declaring war upon the easily redefined concepts of Crime, Drugs and Terror. These result in nebulous unending wars that are easily redefined/expanded by new legislation and in some cases additions to the policies of certain governmental agencies.

Are you under the impression that such "wars" are anything other than rhetorical?

Rhetoric? Yes

Effective Rhetoric? Yes

More than Rhetoric? Also, yes.

"Such" were more than "effective rhetoric", they were White House Policy. They provided both the rational and popular support for policies and legislation that expanded the role of the military to being much more than previously allowed.