[Non-Sequitur]

I know you've read the Oath of Officers, Non-Sequitur.

I took the Officer's oath many years ago.

I know you know the difference between the Oath of Office and the Oath of Enlistment.

I do.

Yet you feign ignorance and take a poke at castlegreyskull using the "superior officer" argument from the Oath of Enlistment when you know Lt. Col. Lakin is an officer. Why would you do that?

Because it is a valid question. Lakin is charged with disobeying the orders of three superior officers, missing movement, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. How can you reconcile such conduct with the oath he took as an officer?

[MHGinTN]

As we can see, deceit is valid so long as it serves the agenda in NS’s twisted mind.

[so_real]

How can you reconcile such conduct with the oath he took as an officer?

That is easy, Non-Sequitur ... Despite their similarities, the Oath of Office germanely omits the requirement to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" as it exists in the Office of Enlistment. This is key to the defense against corruption within the military body itself. The Lakin case is precedent setting and if this antigen against rot from within is removed ... anything becomes legal including military coup. In this way, I reconcile Lt. Col. Lakin's actions and personally find that they "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" to which he was appointed. He has done what is right, instead of what is easy. That makes him a patriot and a hero. Now, your turn : why do we have two Oaths, and what keeps the CiC from leading a military coup if the chain of command takes precedence over the Constitution?

[danamco]

How can you reconcile such conduct with the oath he took as an officer?

Translation: The oath you took many years ago, NOW means NOTHING!!!

Did Lt. Col. Lakin take the oath to the Constitution or to the conduct???