This is something on the Police Oath of Office
The police oath of office is not one lightly taken. Pledging to defend the peace of a nation is important, and the oaths that beginning policemen swear are created to encourage that feeling of importance.First and foremost, a police oath is to protect the laws by which a nation abides - not the PEOPLE of that nation, as so many civilians seem to think, but the laws under which those people live.In other words, they don't make the law, they enforce it.
Whether or not the law is a good one that protects the people or a bad one that harms them is not for a policeman to decide, though they are human and would of course prefer to defend both their fellow man and the law.Secondly, the police oath involves defending the peace. This is where the police sometimes stray, as their goal of making everything peaceful and harmonious can and does conflict with the freedoms of individuals, sometimes violently.Last but hardly least is a pledge to remain impartial in the execution of their duties. Despite any personal feelings of anger or disgust at a possible criminal's actions, a policeman is to act as an instrument of the law rather than upon their individual emotions. They are a part of the justice system, not the whole of it; their duty is to find those who violate the laws and bring them before the courts to receive sentencing without prejudice.
A sample oath of a United States police pledge may read as, "I, (state name) do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of (insert state). I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of police officer of the (insert name) police department to the best of my ability. So help me God."
They need to move to politics if they don't like the laws they enforce.
Golly, they swear to uphold their respective Constitutions.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting to note that the Army has two oaths, one for enlisted soldiers, and one for officers.
For the enlisted,
"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)."
http://www.army.mil/values/oath.html
And for officers,
"I, _____, 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 and 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.)"
http://www.army.mil/values/officers.html
Soldiers also receive training on the definition of what is a lawful order.
"A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a)."
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm
It got hammered home that falling back on the "just following orders" defense wont necessarily work now any better than it did in Nuremberg.
Do you feel the Commander in Chief is violating his oath?
DeleteIn my thirty plus years of service I haven't yet been given an unlawful order. Stupid orders are a different matter, but none unlawful.
DeleteDo you say (believe) there has never been an illegal order given to any service member?
DeleteOf course there have Anon, My Lai comes to mind immediately. And taking the moral high roads doesn't always come cheap.
Delete"Initially, three U.S. servicemen who had tried to halt the massacre and rescue the hiding civilians were shunned, and even denounced as traitors by several U.S. Congressmen, including Mendel Rivers, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Only thirty years later they were recognized and decorated, one posthumously, by the U.S. Army for shielding noncombatants from harm in a war zone."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
By the way, this was during the Johnson Administration. So, Democratic administration and Rivers, mentioned above was a Democrat.
I see, only democrats give unlawful orders.
DeleteNotice how the Constitution comes first? If the president or commanders give an order that violates the Constitution, those orders are illegal and invalid.
ReplyDeleteWhat about you, Greg? Do you think the CiC is violating his oath?
DeleteYes.
DeleteHow? Please elaborate and be specific.
DeleteAny politician, flag officer, officer, or enlisted person who violates the Constitution has violated his or her oath. Obama has at least tolerated NSA spying on American citizens without a warrant, and I suspect he's done a lot more than tolerate it. He has pushed gun control, and while he's mostly failed at that, violating one's oath doesn't require success to be guilty.
DeleteRight, like a regular uneducated jar head would know the complexities of the law, to be able to judge Constitutionality.
DeleteThey follow orders and American soldiers have been convicted of war crimes in every war we have ever participated in.
Anonymous, going after the Marines is generally considered to be a bad idea.
Delete"Right, like a regular uneducated jar head would know the complexities of the law, to be able to judge Constitutionality."
DeleteI think you underestimate the intelligence of today's enlisted soldiers. Most training regarding unlawful orders deals primarily with the laws of war. Constitutionality doesn't really come into it because the military don't conduct operations in the United States.
All soldiers get annual briefings on the law of war. It is also repeated before they go into a combat zone alone with training on the rules of engagement and escalation of force.
Greg, you have to go pretty far into the realm of fanaticism to find agreement. ss doesn't agree with you and neither do I. The two of us represent a huge swath of the population. Obama has not violated his oath.
DeleteKurt Hofmann surely agrees with you, being at that extreme end of the fanaticism spectrum. And unlike you he can eloquently explain why, which if he keeps a civil tongue in his mouth, I'll publish.
Mikeb, I'm not going to speak for Sarge, but I will point out that serving military personnel are not allowed to criticize the president in public. I don't know the limits of that rule, but I suspect the question you're asking qualifies.
Delete"I think you underestimate the intelligence of today's enlisted soldiers."
DeleteThat's why we continue to have soldiers being prosecuted for murder, rape and other felonies? Then you go onto justify unconstitutional behavior because they don't operate in America. I disagree with the idea that the ideals of the Constitution end when soldiers set foot outside the USA.
Anon, if soldiers break the law, they get prosecuted as you seem to say happens regularly. In the Army, you can even be prosecuted and punished for getting a blow job from a subordinate. Something that apparently isn't true if you're the Commander in Chief.
DeleteIf the ideals of the Constitution don't end outside of US, then why exactly are we holding people without trial in a foreign country?
Kurt Hofmann surely agrees with you, being at that extreme end of the fanaticism spectrum.
DeleteI take it you mean "extreme[ly]" temperate. I, after all, advocate not killing in defiance of forcible citizen disarmament tyranny, unless doing so does not deplete one's ammo supply excessively.
As far as my supposed "eloquence," thank you, I guess, but Greg needs no one to speak for him, and indeed speaks quite eloquently on his own behalf. In any debate against the likes of you, I might add, Greg holds the intellectual and moral high ground with particular ease.
Finally, this entire discussion is silly. The Oath Keepers' oath, to disobey unconstitutional orders, contradicts any military or law enforcement service oath in precisely ZERO ways.
One could semi-plausibly make the argument that the second oath is redundant, as it was already implied in the first, but no one worth taking seriously would argue that an oath to obey lawful orders from the chain of command is in conflict with an oath to disobey unlawful orders, from any source.
I'm surprised at you Kurt. Normally you're concise and cutting in your eloquence. But in this comment you dodged and avoided. I know you knew what the question was. What could explain your unusual reluctance to respond?
DeleteJust in case you're on a drinking binge or overdoing the oxy, I'll repeat it. "Do you think the CiC is violating his oath?"
First and foremost, a police oath is to protect the laws by which a nation abides - not the PEOPLE of that nation, as so many civilians seem to think, but the laws under which those people live.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the law is a good one that protects the people or a bad one that harms them is not for a policeman to decide . . .
That's it, Laci! Pretend Nuremberg never happened, and "I was just following orders" is an effective excuse for the perpetrators of enforcement of evil laws.
Damn--idiots are funny!