Subj : Democrat Protesters
To   : Dan Cross
From : Lee Lofaso
Date : Sat Jun 06 2020 03:47 pm

Hello Dan,

>LL>>But if you're going to say the oath of office says something, you
>LL>>should be accurate.
>LL> LL>Here is the version I posted. As far as I know, it is accurate.
>LL>Please feel free to post your own. If it is any different, I am
>LL>sure we will all know soon enough.
>
>What you posted is the oath of _enlistment_.

That's what I said.

>LL>The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for
>LL>commissioned officers are as follows:
>
>No.  I already corrected you and posted the full text of
>the oath of office, which is different from the oath of
>enlistment.

THE WORDINGS OF THE CURRENT OATH OF ENLISTMENT AND OATH FOR
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

Notice I did not mention anything about "oath of office" in my
original post. In my next post, to you, I quoted the oath of office
for the president, who never served in the military or swore any
oath of enlistment/oath for commissioned officers.

>This really isn't hard to verify, but from
>https://www.army.mil/values/officers.html:
>
>Oath of Commissioned Officers
> -----------------------------
>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; 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. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual,
>except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit
> in
>the civil service or uniformed services)
>---end---
>
>You will notice that the text of the two oaths is different.
>You correctly quoted the oath of office later, but not in
>your earlier message.

I used cut-and-paste to ensure both were the same.

>As I said before, if you're going to make a statement
>about this, you have an obligation to at least be accurate.
>
>And this is so trivially easy to verify.

Just so we are both on the same page, here it is with url -

https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html


The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for
commissioned officers are as follows:

"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."

(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first
adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the
United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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 upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

(DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

>LL>I have one question for every commissioned officer in this land.
>LL>Just one -
>LL> LL>"Do you intend to obey illegal orders from the President?"
>
>The UCMJ is quite clear on this: not only do all members
>of the military have a right to ignore illegal orders, but
>they have an obligation to actively resist those orders.

And yet, the joint chiefs of staff went along with their
president as he ordered active military to open fire on peaceful
protesters (mostly women and children) on church grounds. The
soldiers did as they were told, using rubber bullets, pepper
spray, and tear gas to mow everybody down.

>LL>You have publicly stated that you are (or have been) a commissioned
>LL>officer. The president is commander-in-chief, which is a military rank.
>LL>IOW, the president is your superior. Your CO, or commanding officer.
>
>I am a Marine, and yes, I was a commissioned officer (I was
>also enlisted before being commissioned).  However, I have
>been honorably discharged for some time now; so no, he's not
>my CIC (which is not the same as one's CO, which usually
>refers to one's immediate commander).

When the president (as C-in-C) gives a soldier a direct order,
that soldier is expected to comply. The president is not going
to ask a soldier to go find his/her CO, as the president is at
that very moment his/her CO.

>LL>Your CO has given you an order to shoot, with live ammo, other
>LL>Americans. Do you comply? Even if those other Americans are just
>LL>young black kids stealing shoes from department stores.
>
>See above.  No, you do not.  The UCMJ is very clear on this.

Disobeying a direct order, especially during a time of war, can get
a soldier shot. Or stripped of rank and privilege. How many would be
willing to take that chance?

>LL>This very situation happened in New Orleans after Katrina.
>LL>Fortunately for those young black kids, General Honor� refused
>LL>to comply with his CO's request.
>LL> LL>Today's officers have no balls, as shown by their recent actions.
>
>I know a number of officers who'd take exception to
>that and who have demonstrated, through their actions
>both in peacetime and under fire, that you're full of
>shit if you think that.

I am sure you do know a number of officers you *think* would take
exception to what has recently taken place with Trump ordering active
military to open fire on peaceful protesters, with the full blessing
of his joint chiefs of staff. But how many of those you know actually
would, when put to the test?

>Indeed, even in the last 48 hours, a number of retired
>and some active duty military officers have put their
>money where their mouths are and reaffirmed their
>dedication to their oath and the Constitution.

Talk is cheap. Especially when your own head is not on the line.
Active duty military, when ordered by their president to do his
bidding, will do as they are told. General Honor� was and is an
honorable man, who did stand up to power when his time of testing
came. Told the governor to take a flying hike, rather than have
his soldiers fire using live ammunation on kids stealing shoes
in department stores.

>And now, respectfully, you should stay in your lane
>and shut the fuck up about the military.

Silence is complicity. Which is what made Hitler great.
I will not be silent, and neither should anybody else.
We do not need another Hitler. Especially one with orange
hair. Even if he doesn't have a funny moustache. Hell,
his shade of orange skin is bad enough ...

--Lee

--
Melts in your mouth, not in your hands

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

You are viewing proxied material from vert.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.