Milley says the military doesn’t swear oath to a ‘wannabe dictator’ in apparent swipe at Trump
cnn.com
In an impassioned and at times furious speech, departing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley defiantly proclaimed that the US military does not swear an oath to a “wannabe dictator.”
It was a bitter and pointed swipe that appeared unmistakably targeted at former President Donald Trump, who has in recent days accused Milley of “treason” and suggested that he should be put to death for his conduct surrounding Trump’s bid in 2021 to remain in office despite losing the presidential election.
“We are unique among the world’s militaries,” Milley said. “We don’t take an oath to a country, we don’t take an oath to a tribe, we don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator.”
You are viewing a single comment
So... if they don't swear an oath to a country, to whom are they sworn?
They swear an oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America
The Constitution...
United States Army Oath of Enlistment
"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"
This is the oath of enlistment, not the oath commissioned officers take. Officers only swear to uphold the Constitution.
United States Army 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"
Only difference is no promise to follow the presidents orders.
They may not swear an oath to him, but they do swear to follow his orders.
That last bit negates any requirement to obey unlawful orders.
True, they still have to uphold the constitution; but if a tyrannical government changes it or interprets it differently, then it isn't necessarily unlawful or against the constitution to follow a tyrannical order. And that's scary.
That's a pretty stupid tautology. "If they change the law, it's not illegal." And?
There are no laws that can't be changed. That's why you need to vote in all elections.
You missed that part. If the POTUS orders them to do something against regulations (and against the constitution) then they have a duty to refuse those orders.
They really hammered this home in basic. I remember being really suprised by it, having thought as an airman basic I had to do anything I was ordered without question.
Now, the truth is, for your everyday enlisted person, the chances of being given an actually illegal order is basically 0.
Still, it was nice to know that there are mechanisms is place to protect me if I was told to do something truly horrible.
Yeah, watching Nazis get prosecuted after World War 2 was a good wake-up call. The armed forces realized that “I was just following orders” wasn’t a viable defense, and they really started pushing the fact that service members had a duty to refuse obviously illegal orders.
Does no one remember Captain John Sheridan?
Do not follow illegal orders.
❤️
There’s are YOUR sons, YOUR daughters! And they have come home.
I think about the overall "President Clark" scenario a lot more these days, after the last former president.
That is true. The President also swears to uphold and defend the constitution. Ordinarily that isn't a problem.
Sadly in Milleys case it was a problem and he was left in a a largly untenable position.
Just to add, officers take a different oath that doesn't include the obeying orders line:
Not in the oath for Officers.
You say that like they swear specifically to obey Trump’s orders. Not their fault who was voted into office.
Not "him" the office.
The swear an oath to uphold the constitution. It’s a relatively minor difference between swearing to a country. Basically, soldiers have a duty to refuse orders that they know to be illegal, even if those orders are coming from the POTUS. So if the POTUS tries to order all of the generals to DSP something against the constitution, they have a duty to refuse; Because they haven’t sworn an oath to the POTUS; They’ve sworn an oath to the constitution.
To the Constitution of the United States.
If you read past the heading, you might find out.
Ya know, fair. I offered the same suggestion to someone on another post just the other day.
That being said, providing summaries that stop one sentence short of relevant information to turn them into clickbait, not that helpful.
Read the article?
Why is this being downvoted? Not everyone is an army nerd and knows all this shit.
Understanding the relationship of the US military to the US government is essential civics knowledge. Like understanding the 3 branches of government
Lol, no it isn't. It's some extremely niche shit that 90% of people know very little about.
Because the answer is in the article.
Okay, but the video cuts off just before the answer and the page is formatted to draw attention away from the article.