Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MWestMom
“A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.”

Is that true? That is Hitler 101 in his attempt to gain control over the Wermarcht. By having soldiers pledge allegiance to him, he instilled a sense of unquestioning loyalty. Of course pledges and personal oaths meant a lot more back then.

201 posted on 02/18/2009 9:11:30 PM PST by Naspino (Not creative enough to have a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]


To: Naspino
“A standing Army is the bane of Liberty”

As a recently retired army officer, I have seen very little to indicate that the rank and file of both officer and enlisted understand the burdens of constitutional loyalty.

Our oath requires us to swear to defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over us.

As in all legal issues, one must first be given an order of unlawful direction, placing the burden of understanding and of all consequence of that fact on the subordinate.

“conduct a cordon and search of block X, and collect all the firearms in possession of civilians per US law XYZ passed by the congress and signed into law by the POTUS” is a lawful order (it maybe in fact unconstitutional, but a trooper ain't a lawyer, recall); and all military officers and troops are bound to obey.

High ranking officers would have to refuse, be relieved until a turd simply agrees to execute the order. Does anyone really think these GOs (political appointees) are that concerned about civil rights or their careers? Recall the German military-does anyone think they were all reprobate, lilly livered stooges or officers serving to the best of thier ability? I know, we tend to think Americans are above all of that, but look at our elected officials, 99% unreliable and bent on self-aggrandizement, not the business of serving the “posse comitatus” (the power of the land,in our case, the people).

Remebr, “a standing Army is the bane of liberty”; we have a standing Army, no? The ARNG is part of it, no Governor can refuse to deliver his “organized” state militia to the US Army. We have no “well regulated militia (which is “necessary for the security of a free state”. A lone man with a gun is a terrorist (no matter what his intension's are, while a disciplined, organized militia unit (of free men in voluntary association) is a tactical, persuasive tool of a free state.

Be careful about trusting the Army to do what is right-they will likely do what is deemed legal.

Hopefully I am 100% wrong.

God Bless the US

238 posted on 02/19/2009 6:36:18 AM PST by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson