kieron115

They have to infiltrate as many orgs as they can to get around the separation of powers system. But yeah ICE seems particularly bad.

100%

What was ambiguous to you? Also I said that. You must swear or affirm. I personally chose to affirm when I took my oath of enlistment.

Thank you for sharing! Added it to my watch list.

The problem is that the UCMJ puts the onus on the "accuser" to prove that the order was unlawful. It's an awful lot to ask of a public servant. The whole situation sucks.

Ahh, I was enlisted so I didn't know that the officer's oath excludes the "following orders" bit.

It does, however, require you to swear or affirm that you will follow the orders of the President, and the UCMJ puts the onus on the accusing service member to prove that an order is unlawful. It's a lot to ask of service members that likely only joined because they needed college money.

I, (state name of enlistee), 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)."

Edit: Ya'll are right, I didn't realize the officer oath excluded the "following orders" bit.

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)

It's pretty fucked up that we're at the point of relying on service members to decide that an order is unlawful. The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't exactly side with the military members in this instance, but it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it. Here are some crib notes from the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

United States v. Sterling, 75 M.J. 407 (a lawful order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service).

(the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order).

(an order is presumed to be lawful, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption).

(to be lawful, an order must (1) have a valid military purpose, and (2) be clear, specific, and narrowly drawn; in addition, the order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order).

Perhaps a nice stylish codpiece to make it more "realistic"!

Tax dollars well spent IMO. Sometimes its about the message you know?

Fantastic, that means we can have someone toss klingon devito for a gag

Oh cool, reading the memory alpha page about antimatter containment fields now!