100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Oath Keepers in the US Army | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
"just following orders" has never been allowable as a defense
it didnt work for Kelly after My Lai and it didnt work for Lynndie England after Abu Ghraib |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"just following orders" has never been allowable as a defense it didnt work for Kelly after My Lai and it didnt work for Lynndie England after Abu Ghraib On the flip side of that "not following orders" is not an allowable defense definitely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I think that picture is a hoax. Besides,police here in the U.S. do almost all those things listed already
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that picture is a hoax. Besides,police here in the U.S. do almost all those things listed already did you watch the video too? did you read the website? http://oathkeepers.org/oath/category/oathkeeper-testimonials/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that picture is a hoax. Besides,police here in the U.S. do almost all those things listed already did you watch the video too? did you read the website? http://oathkeepers.org/oath/category/oathkeeper-testimonials/  Cool. But I still dont believe it. We dont need the military to do any of those things listed because the police already do
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that picture is a hoax. Besides,police here in the U.S. do almost all those things listed already did you watch the video too? did you read the website? http://oathkeepers.org/oath/category/oathkeeper-testimonials/ Wow, I saved it in my favorites!!!! The video literally gave me the chills. To know that our backs are covered by the very brave men and women of America from a very corrupt irresponsible government is just what this Country needs. Thanks so much for sharing this information!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just looked quickly at the link, and all I can say is that so long as they are not hypocritical, and actually DO represent the defense of the constitution, and enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC, completely and without disregard or prejudice, then I support them 100%. HOWEVER, I can not just except a few people saying that they are for the constitution, and bill of rights, etc. yet they make blanket statements involving willful disobedience and statements to the effect that they will not defend the constitution against another American, just because they are an American.
I see this organization, while being started morally and with good faith I am sure, as nothing more than a conduit for the dissatisfied and disgruntled; those who would rather march on Washington, or their state capitol, and overthrow the current person in office, whomever that may be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in the military you are required to disobey an "unlawful order" all of those "I won't obey" statements are referring to unlawful orders. the military is and should be non partisan, regardless of the individual's political affiliation this is all just an assurance that the military people serve the United States of America and not any individual or cause A lot of good men believed that statement before and when its all said and done they went to prison over it . that was the people who were victims of it saying thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cashu
on
Sun 10/11/09 07:40 PM
|
|
I think that picture is a hoax. Besides,police here in the U.S. do almost all those things listed already did you watch the video too? did you read the website? http://oathkeepers.org/oath/category/oathkeeper-testimonials/ Cool. But I still dont believe it. We dont need the military to do any of those things listed because the police already do I remember reading all the terrible things that the military did to the prisoners and reading how all the people over here thought it was sooooo bad . Thinking dam what do you mean they cannot do that THEY DO IT HERE ALL THE TIME TO OUR OWN PEOPLE . i KNEW A KID WHO WAS 15 YEARS OLD THAT IS WHITE , THAT WAS BEATEN BLACK FROM HIS KNEES TO HIS LOWER RIB CAGE BY A COTTAGE PARENT . WHO WAS SUPPOSE TO BE PROTECTING HIM . THE COTTAGE PARENT WAS BLACK WHEN HE WAS DONE BEATING HIM HE BRAGGED TO THE BLACK KIDS HOW WHITE KEDS COULDN'T TAKE IT LIKE BLACK KIDS .. i COULD SEE BY THE LOOK ON THERE FACES THE DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY . THEY THREW HIM IN THE HOLE TO KEEP ANY ONE FROM SEEING THE KIDS WOUNDS BEFORE THEY STARTED TO HEAL . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great. Too bad for the "secessors", they won't be American citizens anymore huh? "5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty." What we are seeing is not succession. If you look into what the states are trying to do, it is declaring their sovereignty. This means they can just about cut themselves our of the Federal Government. A state has the power to Override the Dapartment of Education, Energy, etc. And can be completely self sufficient if it does not violate the constitution. Actually the supreme court determined in Texas vs White that the original form of secession is null and void. The only way a state can secede is through revolution or if the whole US agrees to it. So you are not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States this is one link to the information. Umm...you do realize what i was saying is that states are merely trying to reaffirm their soveriegnty right? I don't think secession is the issue. But states do have the right (at least some states) not to adopt certain Federal Laws. For instance, the legal drinking age in Louisiana was 18 until the mid 1990's. But as Quiet said, another topic for another post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sun 10/11/09 09:58 PM
|
|
Great. Too bad for the "secessors", they won't be American citizens anymore huh? "5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty." What we are seeing is not succession. If you look into what the states are trying to do, it is declaring their sovereignty. This means they can just about cut themselves our of the Federal Government. A state has the power to Override the Dapartment of Education, Energy, etc. And can be completely self sufficient if it does not violate the constitution. Actually the supreme court determined in Texas vs White that the original form of secession is null and void. The only way a state can secede is through revolution or if the whole US agrees to it. So you are not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States this is one link to the information. Umm...you do realize what i was saying is that states are merely trying to reaffirm their soveriegnty right? I don't think secession is the issue. But states do have the right (at least some states) not to adopt certain Federal Laws. For instance, the legal drinking age in Louisiana was 18 until the mid 1990's. But as Quiet said, another topic for another post. How do you semi secede? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The priority here is placed when supporting and defending the constitution is mentioned before following orders. This means that if even the president of the United States gave an order to raid the streets of civilian personel, and disarm the citizens (In our country), it would be a soldier's duty to decline that order. In fact, that soldier would be obligated to relieve the president of command. IF the President of the United States did not have a legal reason to make such an order, then yes the soldiers in question would be duty-bound to disregard it. However, what you are conveniently forgetting, as so many do, that our soldiers (and I am a veteran myself) vow to protect against ALL enemies NO MATTER WHO THEY MIGHT BE. Let's say I were to get an entire city to back me up in overthrowing the local government and my being put in charge. Basically I become a dictator. The Governor of the state has the legal authority AND OBLIGATION to activate the National Guard, to take back my city and arrest me if possible, kill me if not. This goes for the President of the United States as well, in similar situations. Being an American does not automatically make you right. Nor does it automatically make you a non-enemy. Only your actions or non-actions make these decisions. So, to outright state that you refuse to follow any order that causes you to go against a fellow American no matter the reason, is nothing but pure treason (Mutiny if it is actually ordered and you refuse). edit oops, lol. Sorry forgot to close the bold print earlier Interesting point. However, there is a grey area. You see in our declaration of independence it states, That "if the becomes destructive to these ends" (The right of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.) "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it" ("It" meaning the government.)This is why we have the right to bear arms in the first place. I do see your point... But, National Guard is different then active duty army. It is illegal for the U.S. government to deploy Active duty, combat troops, within U.S. borders if i am not mistaken. And there are certain threats in which the National Guard should be able to, and has an obligation to act to protect other fellow citizens. But this would involve more than the president just pointing his finger. That is the way i see it. If these said citizens were deliberately killing other citizens, ceasing their property, etc. That is when they become a domestic threat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what is being thrown in here, the war, secession it is still very comforting to know that a president does NOT have the ultimate power in controlling the American people. Proud of my military Thank you!! This is kinda what i've been getting at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sun 10/11/09 10:01 PM
|
|
Great. Too bad for the "secessors", they won't be American citizens anymore huh? "5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty." What we are seeing is not succession. If you look into what the states are trying to do, it is declaring their sovereignty. This means they can just about cut themselves our of the Federal Government. A state has the power to Override the Dapartment of Education, Energy, etc. And can be completely self sufficient if it does not violate the constitution. Actually the supreme court determined in Texas vs White that the original form of secession is null and void. The only way a state can secede is through revolution or if the whole US agrees to it. So you are not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States this is one link to the information. Umm...you do realize what i was saying is that states are merely trying to reaffirm their soveriegnty right? I don't think secession is the issue. But states do have the right (at least some states) not to adopt certain Federal Laws. For instance, the legal drinking age in Louisiana was 18 until the mid 1990's. But as Quiet said, another topic for another post. How do you semi secede? The legal issue was states reaffirming their soveriegnty. As far as i know it got blown out of proportion. Threatening sucession is a bluff, you know as well as I. However, they are soveriegn states, that have the right to tell the Federal government not to run their healthcare, welfare, or most of their laws (providing it doesn't disobey our constitution). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nullification is symbolic and has no legal bite/action to it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what is being thrown in here, the war, secession it is still very comforting to know that a president does NOT have the ultimate power in controlling the American people. Proud of my military Thank you!! This is kinda what i've been getting at. I agree, the government has three branches for the purpose of a checks and balances. We have a president and not a KING, as we should. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what is being thrown in here, the war, secession it is still very comforting to know that a president does NOT have the ultimate power in controlling the American people. Proud of my military Thank you!! This is kinda what i've been getting at. Why you're welcome, something so simple yet made out to be so complicated 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nullification is symbolic and has no legal bite/action to it at all. So, what you are saying is that a state has no right of it's own.... What about the 10th amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nullification is symbolic and has no legal bite/action to it at all. So, what you are saying is that a state has no right of it's own.... What about the 10th amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nullification is symbolic and has no legality to it other than the symbol. That is what I said. And after you consider all papers of law to this nation, the constitution, bill of rights, etc... Which all count in this issue mind you. Then what after that? The states already carry those "rights" out now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nullification is symbolic and has no legal bite/action to it at all. So, what you are saying is that a state has no right of it's own.... What about the 10th amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nullification is symbolic and has no legality to it other than the symbol. That is what I said. And after you consider all papers of law to this nation, the constitution, bill of rights, etc... Which all count in this issue mind you. Then what after that? The states already carry those "rights" out now. I see your point. The problem lies with the Federal government controlling things like schools, healthcare and/or welfare. These are not powers of Federal Government. I kinda think this is what they are getting at. Perhaps i am just tired. Either way, we are getting a bit off topic are we not? |
|
|
|
|
