Subj : Re: Democrat Protesters
To   : Lee Lofaso
From : Dan Cross
Date : Sat Jun 06 2020 02:00 pm

On 05 Jun 2020 at 01:22p, Lee Lofaso pondered and said...
 
 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_.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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).

 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.

 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.

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.

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

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/05/28 (Windows/32)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

.