[Grovenet] The law

[Walt Wentz]

>offending troops are young and the portions of their minds concerned
>with analytical thinking and  common sense are not yet fully
>developed, yes, that can be taken into account. But their officers,
>and the civilians who direct their officers, have no such excuse. If
>the troops are to be punished, then the punishment should go all the
>way up the chain of command, even to the White House, whose denizens
>should have been impeached long ago.
>
>So we agree, afterall.   But when you try to say that these things should not
>be done because of the oath of office then I assume that you are pointing the
>finger at enlisted people who take the oath more often than officers.   And,
>you are barking up the wrong tree because the oath does not have the force of
>law or regulation.

The oath of service might be different things to different people, 
but it does constitute a legal contract, and you can get 
court-martialed for violating it. The enlistee promises to give true 
allegiance and obedience to the Constitution (first) and then to the 
President and appointed officers. In return, those superiors are 
obligated to give orders in accordance with military regulations and 
the UCMJ. Otherwise, the section of UCMJ devoted to refusing illegal 
orders would not even exist!