My Oath is still valid

[jamil]

I have to admit, my first take, it was a virtue signal, he didn’t get what he came for, then left.

 

[KG1]

Cancel the boogaloo.

 

[Sigblitz]

Cancel the boogaloo.

Maybe we can send out another horse.

 

[Vigilant]

Cancel the boogaloo.

Wait, wut? I almost had all my **** out of the packages!

 

[HoughMade]

If you took an oath and it is not still valid it never was.

For some oaths, yes. Others are for a specific purpose that is not eternal.

Easy example- I do not have to follow the orders of the president or any military officers. That oath was never intended to be an obligation 25 years after I became a civilian again.

 

[T.Lex]

Speaking of oaths:

I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President deserves and should expect a Secretary of the Navy who is aligned with his vision for the future of our force generation and sustainment.

 

[Trigger Time]

Speaking of oaths:

Wonder what was such an illegal order for him to obey that was unconstitutional?
Maybe he forgot about the part of his oath to obey orders of the President.
Get these insubordinate snowflakes out of the military

 

[HoughMade]

A lot of people think that their opinions/judgment should have the power of law.

 

[T.Lex]

Wonder what was such an illegal order for him to obey that was unconstitutional?
Maybe he forgot about the part of his oath to obey orders of the President.
Get these insubordinate snowflakes out of the military

You might want to have a clearer idea of who you're talking about before you call someone a snowflake. He is not that.

Rather, he saw POTUS undermining (in his learned view) the discipline necessary for an effective fighting force by getting involved in very narrow personnel matters. So he did the honorable thing and resigned.

This is what INGO members have said they wanted from top officials who couldn't do what Trump told them to do. So here's a guy doing that.

 

[Trigger Time]

You might want to have a clearer idea of who you're talking about before you call someone a snowflake. He is not that.

Rather, he saw POTUS undermining (in his learned view) the discipline necessary for an effective fighting force by getting involved in very narrow personnel matters. So he did the honorable thing and resigned.

This is what INGO members have said they wanted from top officials who couldn't do what Trump told them to do. So here's a guy doing that.

No he got fired.
And he resisted the presidents orders first.
Maybe he wasnt a "snowflake" traitor but there are plenty that are. That little weasel Lt. Colonel in the impeachment hearings comes to mind.

 

[T.Lex]

No he got fired.
And he resisted the presidents orders first.
Maybe he wasnt a "snowflake" traitor but there are plenty that are. That little weasel Lt. Colonel in the impeachment hearings comes to mind.

Submitted his resignation by request, ok. Either way, he took a principled stand, right?

So riddle me this - since your oath is clearly important - would you have resisted an order that you believed undermined the military?

 

[Kutnupe14]

No he got fired.
And he resisted the presidents orders first.
Maybe he wasnt a "snowflake" traitor but there are plenty that are. That little weasel Lt. Colonel in the impeachment hearings comes to mind.

The DoD say he didn't follow the chain of command. He was upset because he did not like the idea of the president undermining the UCMJ. It is admittedly the president's full right to do what he did; allowing the SEAL to retire with his trident, and avoid military discipline. However, you're sure to ruffle some feathers amongst military brass, when a civilian takes away the autonomy of the military to dish out discipline to the soldiers under their command.

 

[HoughMade]

The DoD say he didn't follow the chain of command. He was upset because he did not like the idea of the president undermining the UCMJ. It is admittedly the president's full right to do what he did; allowing the SEAL to retire with his trident, and avoid military discipline. However, you're sure to ruffle some feathers amongst military brass, when a civilian takes away the autonomy of the military to dish out discipline to the soldiers under their command.

"Ruffling feathers" and thinking something is a bad idea or is unwise is a far cry from refusing to follow an illegal order.

I agree with T.Lex that he took a principled stance. I have no issue with that, but let's not turn this into something it isn't. There was no illegal order. He didn't think he could serve under a President who exercised his legitimate authority as Commander in Chief in this fashion, so he resigned. Fine. That's his right.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"Ruffling feathers" and thinking something is a bad idea or is unwise is a far cry from refusing to follow an illegal order.

I agree with T.Lex that he took a principled stance. I have no issue with that, but let's not turn this into something it isn't. There was no illegal order. He didn't think he could serve under a President who exercised his legitimate authority as Commander in Chief in this fashion, so he resigned. Fine. That's his right.

Was this meant in reference to my post? I did not say there was anything, nor do I believe, illegal within this instance.

 

[HoughMade]

Was this meant in reference to my post? I did not say there was anything, nor do I believe, illegal within this instance.

Call a riff on your post, referring to other posts. I understood what you said.

Spencer himself seemed to want to couch this in those terms with the pearl clutching: "I cannot in good conscience obey...."

We get it, you don't want to answer to Trump and you want to portray a disagreement about policy as you climbing up onto the cross.

As for obeying an order I didn't think was wise....I was an enlisted guy....that was my life.

 

[BugI02]

Submitted his resignation by request, ok. Either way, he took a principled stand, right?

So riddle me this - since your oath is clearly important - would you have resisted an order that you believed undermined the military?

You mean like ones diluting the requirements for SOF so women can qualify or requiring the military to accept transgendered soldiers?

I'd like to see how this guy would get dragged if his 'principled stand' was against those progressively cherished ideals, and can you argue that those don't 'undermine the military' far more? Where were the protests and resignations when Obama commuted the sentence of that Manning person? Didn't that undermine the UCMJ?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You mean like ones diluting the requirements for SOF so women can qualify or requiring the military to accept transgendered soldiers?

I'd like to see how this guy would get dragged if his 'principled stand' was against those progressively cherished ideals, and can you argue that those don't 'undermine the military' far more? Where were the protests and resignations when Obama commuted the sentence of that Manning person? Didn't that undermine the UCMJ?

That's not the same at all. The president can set the overall direction of the service branches. In theory if he simply changed the respective code within the UCMJ so that no other soldier would ever be liable for the same transgressions, then he could avoid criticisms. In this instance, he made an exception for one soldier.

 

[BugI02]

A lot of people think that their opinions/judgment should have the power of law.

/thread for this and practically any other thread involving the resistance

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HoughMade again.

 

[Kutnupe14]

/thread for this and practically any other thread involving the resistance

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HoughMade again.

I honestly took that line as referencing Trump.

 

[HoughMade]

That's not the same at all. The president can set the overall direction of the service branches. In theory if he simply changed the respective code within the UCMJ so that no other soldier would ever be liable for the same transgressions, then he could avoid criticisms. In this instance, he made an exception for one soldier.

It's almost like he had the power to pardon crimes or something.