| Sailor Steve |
08-12-10 11:15 AM |
I just watched the first minute or so of the video and had to shut it off. Razark hit it on the head:
Quote:
Originally Posted by razark
If he really had a problem with Obama than he should have resigned his commission in Jan 2008.
|
Don't you mean January 2009?
My only disagreement is that he should have resigned in November 2008, the minute the results were in. Then it would have meant something.
The military is not a democrocy. An oath of office is required, and here's what it says:
Quote:
"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 or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations 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.)
|
Just in case there is any question, the oath of enlistment is much more specific:
Quote:
"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).
|
An officer is allowed - and even expected - to disobey orders when the order is determined by that officer to be illegal. But the officer must be willing to stand up in court and show that his disobedience was for the good of the service, and that the order itself was both illegal and bad. This covers only the order itself, not the person giving it. If an officer has a problem with a superior the time to take it up is when the problem becomes apparent, not a year-and-a-half later when said officer recieves an order he doesn't like.
There is no room for maneuvering here - this man is a criminal and a disgrace to his uniform and needs to be treated as such. At the very least a bad-conduct discharge is in order. |
