JCS Letter

[Henry Whalley]

Thank heavens that the Joint Chiefs remain loyal to the Constitution of our great republic.

[oladub]

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"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."

[Henry Whalley]

The wordings of the current oath...

It's the enlistment oath taken by each person enlisting in an armed force IAW 10 U.S. Code § 502

[oladub]

It's the enlistment oath taken by each person enlisting in an armed force IAW 10 U.S. Code § 502

Yes, of course, but my point was the discrepancy between the oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers and the wording in the letter from the joint chiefs of staff.

The letters says "the U.S. military will obey lawful orders from civilian leadership, support civil authorities to protect lives and property..." while the oath for commissioned officers reads "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."

Notice that the "President of the United States" and "officers appointed over me" is a great deal more specific than "lawful orders from civilian leadership". In fact, the joint chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force have only one officer appointed over them who is the Commander in Chief. The Coast Guard in peacetime might be an exception.

The letter doesn't even specify who these civilians are or if they are specific to the U.S.. Also, which civilians or military chiefs of staff determine which orders are lawful? What's the process in the heat of battle? What if one civilian authority claims an order is lawful and another says it is unlawful?

Was that just a hastily contrived and sloppily written letter or does civilian leadership mean Nancy Pelosi and/or other undefined civilian authorities [[plural) instead of just the President of the United States? Is there a list of civilian authorities who fit this description? There are no civilian authorities who outrank the Commander in Chief. This letter raises so many questions. Maybe I fell asleep in civics class one day and missed all this. Perhaps you could explain the discrepancies and omissions.

[Henry Whalley]

Secretary of Defense

[Henry Whalley]

Orders to rob a bank or shoot a politician would be unlawful. A soldier can’t say ‘I was just following orders’ - that’s been tried. Officers and enlisted receive training on this.

[jcole]

Lt Calley in Viet Nam, notably.

Orders to rob a bank or shoot a politician would be unlawful. A soldier can’t say ‘I was just following orders’ - that’s been tried. Officers and enlisted receive training on this.

[oladub]

Secretary of Defense

Agreed. The Secretary of Defense might well be carrying out orders of a president. The President could reverse unauthorized orders of course. Orders from say Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, would be unlawful orders unless Trump and Pence were both gone. I still find it curious that the Joint Chiefs would substitute unspecified "Civilian leadership" instead of orders from the president and superior officers. Remembering claims that Nancy already spoke to the Chiefs, I'm doubting that the wording was an accident. In 6 days it won't make much difference.

If the rumors are true that the Capitol invaders stole Nancy's laptop, It will be interesting to find out where the laptop pops up. I've even had the thought that perhaps there was a plan, organized by who I don't know, to have the Capitol invaded as cover to secure some computers containing a lot of interesting information.

[Henry Whalley]

I still find it curious that the Joint Chiefs would substitute unspecified "Civilian leadership"...

I think it’s because state governors command National Guard troops under 32 U.S. Code.

[Meddle]

I still find it curious that the Joint Chiefs would substitute unspecified "Civilian leadership" instead of orders from the president and superior officers.

Well, ya' know, when the PUTZ is a complete and total nutter out to overthrow the duly elected successor ......

[Henry Whalley]

Well, ya' know, when the PUTZ is a complete and total nutter out to overthrow the duly elected successor ......

America is no exception -- fascism has a robust presence here. The 117th Congress will no doubt pass S.894 - Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019 116th Congress [[2019-2020). The ACLU opposed it but they can blow me.

Many enemies of our republic will deservedly go to prison. The federal system doesn't have cells to house all the crazies. Rat Island in the Aleutians is one place for a penal colony from which one couldn't easily escape; where it ain't summertime and the livin' ain't easy.

I take heart knowing that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are with the good citizens of our great republic.

Text - S.894 - 116th Congress [[2019-2020): Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

[oladub]

I wonder who highlighted "white" in your link.

Friedrich Hayek shared a Nobel prize for his work on Fascism. One of his points was that fascism in its various forms always begins with economic fascism, a.k.a. corporatism. Corporatism is the collusion of big government and big government. That isn't always a bad thing. Another of Hayek's observations is that sometimes corporatism does not progress into the more evil deadly forms we associate with Nazis. Corporatist policies can even shrink.

President Elect Biden was the choice of corporatists in this election. Biden received something like 4x the large donations that Trump received from oligarchs and corporations. FDR was the most corporatist president but many of his corporatist policies were only temporary. FDR was fascinated by Mussolini's social welfare reforms. It should be said that once WWII began, FDR dropped his fascination with Mussolini and proved to be a patriotic American fighting global fascism.

We see an expansion of economic fascism in the U.S. mostly from Democrats. This bill is a good example of the more benign corporatism morphing into a more virulent form of fascism. Joe McCarthy could only have dreamed of such a bill to eliminate those he disagreed with. Terms in the bill, I'm guessing, will be expanded and weaponized.

The FBI does not need such a bill to do its job of routing out domestic violence. It already has the tools to do so as we have seen in the round up of those who broke into the Capitol. After its somnolent half-hearted efforts to round up antifa criminals, we are reminded that it does have the capacity to do its job if it chooses too. This bill even funds the military to go after Americans.

One problem I have with this, in my opinion, fascist bill is that it uses bad math suggesting bad intent. Whites make up 59.7% of the population and commit 43% of all murders. The bill charges whites with 62 hate murders over 16 years. That averages about 4 a year. The bill compares the number of ideological crimes committed by whites and Muslims since the day after 9/11 [[how convenient!) and concludes whites are more dangerous. However whites constitute 60% of the population and Muslims 1%. So if this were evaluated on a per capita basis the Muslim total of 23 hate murders times 60 would equal 1,380 hate murders compared with 62 for whites. On a per capita basis, Muslims are 21x more likely to kill for hate purposes than whites since 9/11. Just saying.

I think your post reeks of Schadenfreude by the way.

[Henry Whalley]

LOL!
Note to self:
Don’t bother to read Hayek.

It’s savage indignation not schadenfreude.

P.S. Corporations are canceling insurrectionist politicians.

[oladub]

"Savage indignation" is as bad as schadenfreude. Some of those who broke into the Capitol suffered from savage indignation.

By all means avoid Hayek. He defended classical liberalism and opposed tyrannies of the majority. He fled fascism and his opinions about fascism might not fit your narrative. You seem to support censorship and corporatism.

Corporations have proven that they are more powerful than government. In the past, progressives responded by splitting up monopolies. Now they are the beneficiaries of monopolies.

[Zacha341]

^ Exactly. Say that last paragraph again!

[Henry Whalley]

Some of those who broke into the Capitol suffered from savage indignation.

They suffer from slavish insurrection.
Slaves of the tRump Cult.

[Zacha341]

^ Thankfully there are no other cultish behaviors occurring or evolving......

[Henry Whalley]

By all means avoid Hayek.

I'd rather study Salma Hayek

But seriously, I'm solidly in the camp of classical liberalism. But were I wavering between classical liberalism and totalitarianism, I probably would read a little Hayek to recalibrate my soul.

[Zacha341]

^ Yes, I make the distinction between classical liberalism and the far left. I think it's important to do so. Understanding the far lefts agenda.

The problem with some liberals is they myopically focus only on the far right as their sole concern.

I don't.

[Wheels]

The left is coming down hard! If I can find this stuff it’s getting serious!

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...prod-00968.pdf

[Henry Whalley]

The left is coming down hard! If I can find this stuff it’s getting serious!

What is the point?

[Wheels]

What is the point?

How do you like your crow?

[Henry Whalley]

How do you like your crow?

?

[Richard]

How do you like your crow?

Between that and the Russian collusion material that is being presented,I think it is time to start charging Pelosi and Shumer and Adler with conspiracy and abuse of power to overthrow a sitting United States President.

The Ukrainian thing was the worst because right from the start Shumer witnesses were not even witnesses and he knew it.

Like they say though 2020 will be the year of reckoning in the court system for the top democrat leadership,they burn cites and we use the system and their proven actions against them.

I guess it was kinda good that Pelosi has set the bar so low,it made it easier for them to trip over.

They have already raised 1.2 million out of 1.5 million votes to remove Newsom in California,next will be New York’s governor,and the other state governors with their negligence in handling during the rona virus.

Good thing they are dusting off Gitmo,maybe they can paint some of it blue so the new residents will feel more at home.

Think about it,if every Republican state district attorney filed criminal charges for inciting riots and seeking civil compensation for damages that accrued during those riots.

So each democrat politician that encouraged and refused to condone the violence,as it is documented in the video tapes,played over and over on the news,will be served individually by 25 different states.

Their time in court alone in each one of those states shuts ddown their ability to represent.

Its a good thing everybody is on the same page when it comes to nobody is above the law.

All the states have to do is when there is a piece of legislation coming up for a vote is subpoena them in for a deposition,they lose majority.

Thats the sad part,the republicans have to learn how to be nasty and vindictive just like they are.

[Henry Whalley]

...dusting off Gitmo...

There are only about 200 empty chicken cages at Gitmo. Gonna' have to build more cages on Rat Islands or other desolate locations.

So behave yourself if you value your free-range status.