There's nothing legally suggesting that an oath was made under false pretenseing by any current military personell.

Con_Alma;1494598 wrote:There's nothing legally suggesting that an oath was made under false pretenseing by any current military personell.

*pretenses
*personnel

Again, I submit that all you'd need to do would be to eavesdrop on the conversations at booths during high school visits. Even some of the material goes so far as to platform military service as "defending" either our country or our people.

I'd suggest that that is enough evidence already to substantiate a bait-and-switch, ie a false pretense.

And again, I submit that the oath itself can be contradictory (or, at the very least, that defense can be made). As such, it would become null.

It's in writing. They sign an agreement.

All they need to do is read what they are committing to.

I would enjoy a challenge against the governemnt by the above Naval personnel with such a claim as you're making. He would lose and he knows it. I think you do to.

Con_Alma;1494606 wrote:It's in writing. They sign an agreement.

All they need to do is read what they are committing to.

I would enjoy a challenge against the governemnt by the above Naval personnel with such a claim as you're making. He would lose and he knows it. I think you do to.

* too

Of course he would lose. There is enough precedent to establish that the high courts don't seem to mind this kind of abuse of power.

And I'd contend that it doesn't matter what they sign. If I sign a document saying I'll be your lacky and do absolutely anything you ask, and you tell me to have an affair with your neighbor's wife, the courts are not likely to bind me to that contract.

Even less so if you then asked me to do something illegal.

But you're indeed right that they would lose a court case. Not for the reasons you seem to think, though.

They aren't being asked to do something illegal. That;s a speculative interpretation on your part.

He's also not being ask to do "absolutely anything" but rather he will be order to do what he has already agreed to do in writing.

Con_Alma;1494619 wrote:They aren't being asked to do something illegal. That;s a speculative interpretation on your part.

Though I alluded to its possibility, I made no such speculation.

The fact that it is possible, however, should at least lend credibility to the fact that it could be argued to be true. I'm not suggesting that it is, but I'm neither suggesting that it is not.

Con_Alma;1494619 wrote:He's also not being ask to do "absolutely anything" but rather he will be order to do what he has already agreed to do in writing.

Under your interpretation of the oath and signed document, the two aren't mutually exclusive. If he agreed to "follow the orders of the President," then unless there are specific stipulations within the document itself on what the president can ask the soldier to do, then there is indeed an open-ended level to the milieu of what he can be asked to do. Thus, while it wouldn't be "absolutely anything" in its truest sense, it would be far further than is ethical.

O-Trap;1494597 wrote: Why you join can be ANYTHING but irrelevant if why you joined is motivated and shaped by the leadership you will be serving, only for it to turn into a bait and switch.

If I'm told that I will be doing marketing upon being hired at a new job, but once I get there, they ask me to be a fluffer on a porn set, I daresay I have reason to be upset, regardless of what I agreed to.

If these troops have made an oath under false pretense, I see no justification for calling why they joined irrelevant.

Looks like he has a few stripes on his arm. which means he had a few chances to separate from the Navy. So maybe his original reason for joining wasn't what he expected, why did he stay in? kinda like what I would expect you do to do if your marketing job ended up being a fluffer on a porn set.

Glory Days;1494650 wrote:Looks like he has a few stripes on his arm. which means he had a few chances to separate from the Navy. So maybe his original reason for joining wasn't what he expected, why did he stay in? kinda like what I would expect you do to do if your marketing job ended up being a fluffer on a porn set.

I agree with you.

Perhaps his beef was merely with fighting alongside people who carried out 9/11. Quite honestly, I'm nearly aghast how many people seem okay with both military interventionism AND working alongside Al Qaeda.

In the event that working with Al Qaeda is where he draws the line, I'd take issue with his view of what the military has done thus far. I can't disagree with his sentiment, still.

Can you? Do you have no qualm with us fighting alongside Al Qaeda under the circumstances?

In the event that working with Al Qaeda is where he draws the line, I'd take issue with his view of what the military has done thus far. I can't disagree with his sentiment, still.

Can you? Do you have no qualm with us fighting alongside Al Qaeda under the circumstances?

....and so you'd have a problem with working with the Ruskies to defeat Hitler at the end of WWII?

I suggest that your point here is mental masterbation. I think we all know that soldiers are expected to follow orders within reason...and that includes shifting and temporary alliances.

HitsRus;1494657 wrote:....and so you'd have a problem with working with the Ruskies to defeat Hitler at the end of WWII?

I'd suggest that the "Ruskies" did not commit the same kind of atrocity against innocent American civilians that Al Qaeda did.

HitsRus;1494657 wrote:I suggest that your point here is mental masterbation. I think we all know that soldiers are expected to follow orders within reason...and that includes shifting and temporary alliances.

I didn't say they aren't "expected to." I'm saying that isn't necessarily ethical. Moreover, I'd say that working alongside the niche group that is responsible for the biggest attack on US turf since Pearl Harbor is a little more than a shifting or convenient alliance.

O-Trap;1494597 wrote:And does not the oath conflict with itself, as it also holds them to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies?

I don't think conflict is the best word for it in general. But you are right. One swears he/she will support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The primary authority these individuals are swearing their allegiance to is the US Constitution or in the case of National Guardsmen their state constitutions as well. Swearing to obey the POTUS, Governor, or superior officers are secondary and also according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The POTUS, Governors, and officers in the military swear to the same to perform their duties and issue their orders under the authority of the same Constitution. The oath for enlisted men assumes their authorities are going to obey their oath to the Constitution and act within the guidelines of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

O-Trap;1494597 wrote:So what happens when the President becomes an enemy to the Constitution?

In this case you would have conflict. Or in the case of a superior officer ordering a subordinate to execute a combatant that has surrendered his arms. The oath provides justification to be released from the bond of obedience to superiors under certain circumstances. But you better have your balls screwed on right and especially if you are going with the constitutional argument you are going to need numbers in like minded fellow soldiers and popular civilian support.

But any ways I think this is a mute argument in the case of Syria because the POTUS has chosen to seek the approval of Congress. The US Constitution does not restrict the US government from taking offensive action. Even when not under imminent threat. The Constitutional authority to do so lies in the legislative branch.

This does not mean I do not have serious issues with this. I am not a fan of either side. But I also understand stockpiles of dangerous weapons are in the possession or reach of our enemies. Whether its Al Qaeda elements on the rebels side or Hezbollah/Hamas/Iranian elements on the side of the Syrian government. These weapons are being used. Have been used several times. And will continue to be used. Its in our interest to be certain these chemicals are secure. What to do is a very difficult decision and a lot of bad contingencies are out there.

I'd suggest that the "Ruskies" did not commit the same kind of atrocity against innocent American civilians that Al Qaeda did.

....probably only because they didn't touch our shores...but if they did they probably would have, given the documented history of Russian soldiers in Poland and Germany. None of that seemed to matter to FDR who did know . Now the average GI probably had no idea that Russian soldiers were committing such atrocities....but if they did know, are they ethically bereft? ....stroke stroke.....

BGFalcons82;1493998 wrote:But that's not what I heard him say. He's convinced he doesn't need approval from anyone to bomb and destroy as he pleases.

If this is what Obama believes in his heart of hearts isn't this why we have laws and a constitution? Perhaps he is only obeying it in this case because the potential consequences are the deterrent as opposed to his personal moral or constitutional compass. I dunno. I can only guess at the intention of ones heart. But I can be certain of his actions.

Photos are fakes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408854/Syria-crisis-I-didnt-join-Navy-fight-al-Qaeda-Syrian-civil-war-photo-goes-viral.html

TedSheckler;1494684 wrote:Photos are fakes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408854/Syria-crisis-I-didnt-join-Navy-fight-al-Qaeda-Syrian-civil-war-photo-goes-viral.html

I'm actually a little surprised, given the number of military personnel I've heard say something similar.

O-Trap;1494687 wrote:I'm actually a little surprised, given the number of military personnel I've heard say something similar.

Although I don't doubt you, it doesn't surprise me it was fake. I am surprised at who did it though. I figured it would be some hippie liberal here in the states.

O-Trap;1494644 wrote:Though I alluded to its possibility, I made no such speculation.

The fact that it is possible, however, should at least lend credibility to the fact that it could be argued to be true. I'm not suggesting that it is, but I'm neither suggesting that it is not.



Under your interpretation of the oath and signed document, the two aren't mutually exclusive. If he agreed to "follow the orders of the President," then unless there are specific stipulations within the document itself on what the president can ask the soldier to do, then there is indeed an open-ended level to the milieu of what he can be asked to do. Thus, while it wouldn't be "absolutely anything" in its truest sense, it would be far further than is ethical.

They aren't being asked to do anything illegal.

They are not being forced to agree to acting to anything unethical. It's not an unlimited agreement. It's not even an agreement that's forced upon them. Lol

I have no sympathy for anyone signing on and then publicly advertising against a particular operation that hasn't even happened yet.

John Kerry having his Rumsfeld moment.

^^^
"I'll have the Camel Hummus and hold the Sarin"

I realize a lot of people will be against what BHO wants to do because: He is a President of a party you don't support and/or he is black. Plain and simple. With that said...limited strikes is at least a start. I would like to see a lot more of an attempt and think it would happen once the limited ones are not as effective.

IggyPride00;1494772 wrote:

John Kerry having his Rumsfeld moment.

Again, we supported Hussein/Iraq vs Iran, Bin Laden when the Russians invaded, etc

thavoice;1494825 wrote:I realize a lot of people will be against what BHO wants to do because: He is a President of a party you don't support and/or he is black. Plain and simple. With that said...limited strikes is at least a start. I would like to see a lot more of an attempt and think it would happen once the limited ones are not as effective.

Yikes!...there are a lot of reasons to oppose this besides politics and playing the race card, and it would be terribly wrong to characterize those against this as that. There are a lot of reasons to oppose our getting involved militarily, not the least of which is there is no clearly defined objective, and a nebulous exit strategy.

HitsRus;1494858 wrote:Yikes!...there are a lot of reasons to oppose this besides politics and playing the race card, and it would be terribly wrong to characterize those against this as that. There are a lot of reasons to oppose our getting involved militarily, not the least of which is there is no clearly defined objective, and a nebulous exit strategy.

No no no, HitsRus. If you oppose Barry on ANYTHING, you are a racist. That's how far we evolved since MLK, Jr gave his speech 50 years ago about judging character and not skin color. Have any of the Obamabots thought about:

1. What American targets are the Syrians desiring?
2. Do we expect a Syrian assault over the USA?
3. Why won't the rest of the planet get behind Barry's need to lob rockets to punish them for Assad's supposed use of chemical weapons?
4. Do we know who unleashed the sarin? Are we 100% certain it was Assad? The rebels wouldn't kill their own in order to get Barry involved, would they? Nah...those barbarians NEVER kill their own. Ever.
5. What happens next after the lobs "across their bow"?
6. Is it a war?
7. What is the exit strategy? Or is this another decade-long excursion into lands where the USA is hated?
8. Define what a win looks like.
9. How in the hell can the Obama Regime figure out a way to blame Bush?
10. Most importantly, will Lamar and Chloe get back together?

BGFalcons82;1494902 wrote:9. How in the hell can the Obama Regime figure out a way to blame Bush?

You can take this one off your list. If Obama fails to get approval from congress this is what they will go with.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2013/08/28/bush-blame-public-unease-obama-plan-attack-syria-liberals-predictably-

Hahahahaha. Was unaware we had so many experts on Syria in this forum.

1) What the military-industry complex wants, it gets. (As shown by Obama AND Boehner pushing for this idiotic foray into Syria.)

2) Wow people are still pushing this Benghazi thing. That's cool.

3) Navy Guy: You joined the Navy to fight wherever your Commander-In-Chief sent you. Sucks, I know, but them the breaks.