They differentiate that from serving the President? Non-military here. Preserve and protect the Constitution, but the Constitution specifies that the President is your ultimate commander. How can they get around that? I know Biden is certainly not following his oath to the Constitution.
It's the oath of enlistment. All military branches, except Guard, have you say the same thing:
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; 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.
Also former AF here, though with far more naked shirt sleeve material visible :) Can confirm, "I will obey the LEGAL orders of the president, etc." is what is meant. At no time is any military member ever obligated to follow what they know to be an illegal order; in fact if I'm not mistaken it's their duty to disobey it.
And the Xidan's Coup was entirely illegal, tainting anything he orders, which would thereby invalidate everything he orders. Huh.
I wonder if this somehow plays into "The military is the only way" ... imagine if there were a Globalist plant in the lower-levels, that sues (or whatever the military equivalent is) his commanding officer (or maybe way up to a Flag rank) for not following a Xidan order. Seems very much something that the other side would think is a good idea, especially if it's someone they despise (like Flynn's brother). Attempt to force submission of what they don't control, leaking everything to the media to ensure public awareness of their dominance. A military tribunal then begins, and in that way, the Truth about the Xidan "administration" is presented to defend the General/Admiral.
Many patriots that I listen to (like X22, etc) keep talking about the optics, saying that Trump needs them to drag the info out of him in his defense (and it can't look like he's on the offense). What if, instead, the Q team WANTS everyone to think the military will kinetically take over (causing them to do stupid things like a fence around the capitol, etc)?
But could the actual plan be to use the military COURTS to DISSEMINATE the information (since those are the only uncorrupted courts) that drives mass resignations of the guilty, recall actions (like Newsom) for those that won't leave, and purging of the corrupt judges? Hmmmmmmm.....
30 yr AF retired here. Yes, the President is CIC but we are not obligated to follow any order that would be illegal. In the Oath, the Constitution is mentioned first. That is our priority and where are allegiance truly lies.
Not military here, but I would think something like executing a prisoner of war who is clearly not a threat without a Tribunal taking place.
Or more clearly something like being ordered to rape a civilian (read: Rape of Nanking by the Japanese in WW2) or prisoner. Anything against the Uniform Code of Military Justice (I think that's the term) or the Geneva Convention, I would think, other examples.
First let me correct. I said illegal when I should have unlawful. Same thing but unlawful is used in this context. So an extreme example would be if a commander or anyone appointed over you gave you an order to say kill a prisoner that wasn't a threat. That would be an unlawful order and if someone followed that order would be as guilty as the person giving it. I personally believe that if an order was given to take your weapons without due process would be unlawful as well but we know during Katrina, that happened in a few cases. Commanders should have never confiscated weapons from those otherwise legally allowed to have them. Certainly the Law of Armed Conflict carves out areas specific to war but short of that even the President can't issue orders that would otherwise be illegal and if they do it is the responsibility of commanders to refuse to carry them out. We may very well see how that all pans out very shortly.
They differentiate that from serving the President? Non-military here. Preserve and protect the Constitution, but the Constitution specifies that the President is your ultimate commander. How can they get around that? I know Biden is certainly not following his oath to the Constitution.
It's the oath of enlistment. All military branches, except Guard, have you say the same thing: 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; 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.
Also former AF here, though with far more naked shirt sleeve material visible :) Can confirm, "I will obey the LEGAL orders of the president, etc." is what is meant. At no time is any military member ever obligated to follow what they know to be an illegal order; in fact if I'm not mistaken it's their duty to disobey it.
Huh. Excellent point.
And the Xidan's Coup was entirely illegal, tainting anything he orders, which would thereby invalidate everything he orders. Huh.
I wonder if this somehow plays into "The military is the only way" ... imagine if there were a Globalist plant in the lower-levels, that sues (or whatever the military equivalent is) his commanding officer (or maybe way up to a Flag rank) for not following a Xidan order. Seems very much something that the other side would think is a good idea, especially if it's someone they despise (like Flynn's brother). Attempt to force submission of what they don't control, leaking everything to the media to ensure public awareness of their dominance. A military tribunal then begins, and in that way, the Truth about the Xidan "administration" is presented to defend the General/Admiral.
Many patriots that I listen to (like X22, etc) keep talking about the optics, saying that Trump needs them to drag the info out of him in his defense (and it can't look like he's on the offense). What if, instead, the Q team WANTS everyone to think the military will kinetically take over (causing them to do stupid things like a fence around the capitol, etc)?
But could the actual plan be to use the military COURTS to DISSEMINATE the information (since those are the only uncorrupted courts) that drives mass resignations of the guilty, recall actions (like Newsom) for those that won't leave, and purging of the corrupt judges? Hmmmmmmm.....
Yep. Army Reserves, and at MEPS we took this oath. That was in '96, mind you.
30 yr AF retired here. Yes, the President is CIC but we are not obligated to follow any order that would be illegal. In the Oath, the Constitution is mentioned first. That is our priority and where are allegiance truly lies.
What is considered an illegal order?
Not military here, but I would think something like executing a prisoner of war who is clearly not a threat without a Tribunal taking place.
Or more clearly something like being ordered to rape a civilian (read: Rape of Nanking by the Japanese in WW2) or prisoner. Anything against the Uniform Code of Military Justice (I think that's the term) or the Geneva Convention, I would think, other examples.
First let me correct. I said illegal when I should have unlawful. Same thing but unlawful is used in this context. So an extreme example would be if a commander or anyone appointed over you gave you an order to say kill a prisoner that wasn't a threat. That would be an unlawful order and if someone followed that order would be as guilty as the person giving it. I personally believe that if an order was given to take your weapons without due process would be unlawful as well but we know during Katrina, that happened in a few cases. Commanders should have never confiscated weapons from those otherwise legally allowed to have them. Certainly the Law of Armed Conflict carves out areas specific to war but short of that even the President can't issue orders that would otherwise be illegal and if they do it is the responsibility of commanders to refuse to carry them out. We may very well see how that all pans out very shortly.