"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."
There are three parts to the Oath. In the first, you swear to defend the Constitution. In the second, you swear allegiance to it. In the third you swear to participate in the military according to regulations and the UCMJ. Looking at these three parts from back to front, the obedience part is irrelevant. UCMJ applies where it applies and doesn't where it doesn't. The military has its own mechanisms for enforcing its laws and regulations- you don't have to take an oath to be bound by and under the control of those mechanisms. Placing that part in the Oath is more a strong way of showing recruits an important part of the commitment they are making. Seriously- is a soldier under arrest and facing a court-martial honorably fulfilling his Oath by submitting to that? Can he get out of it by simply renouncing his Oath? It makes no sense. As to discharged veterans and, in most circumstances, Reserve Component members, UCMJ doesn't even apply to them (see Article 2). If allowing it to continue not applying to them counts as constantly fulfilling their Oath, then good for them.
The second part, swearing allegiance to the Constitution, is slightly less dumb. Citizens simply owe allegiance to their country, and the United States, as a nation, is an artificial construction. It was created by the Declaration of Independence and is defined by the Constitution. Allegiance to the U.S. is allegiance to the Constitution, plain and simple. Civilians who have never taken this oath can be convicted of treason because of that allegiance. For citizens joining the military, this part is again just a reminder of what they're doing. For non-citizens who enlist, it is a critical requirement to bring them to the same level of obligation to the Constitution that citizens have.
The first part of the Oath is the most important, the only one that isn't already taken care of by other means (at least for citizens). It's important enough to look at again:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
The rest of the Oath is simply restating the obvious, but this is its heart- to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies. This part of the Oath is the crux of the argument about serving or betraying the country.
IVAW members in general are regularly accused of treason because of differing opinions of just what it means to "support and defend the Constitution." Apparently, lots of people seem to think it involves everyone blindly adhering to the directives of the Bush administration, a group of people who only violate the Constitution on days that end in "y." That just doesn't make any sense to me. Look at the main problem, at least when calling IVAW members traitors: Iraq. Does opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq signal a refusal to defend the Constitution? Not at all. Iraq was never a threat to us, but invading and occupying Iraq has made us weaker for no good reason. Again, for no good reason. If there were a good reason, then this whole mess would have legitimacy and opposition to it would be crippled. Without a good reason, it's bad for the country. To defend the country, we have to oppose the war.
2 comments:
Thank you so much for putting this out there. You want to talk about domestic enemies, we probably have more of those than we do foreign enemies. The Bush disciples remind me a lot of the British loyalists in the revolution. The only ones who supported the deplorable king George were the ones who stood to profit, the one's who were retarded, and the ones who were afraid. Ring any bells?
Read and learn vet.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
The first part says "all enemies, foreign and domestic"
We don't need to send rounds down range in Iraq, we need to start sending them down range in D.C. to remind those bastards exactly who they work for and whose interests they are supposed to be looking out for!
Post a Comment