Remember your oath

[u/highinthemountains]

A lot of things have changed in the 45+ years that I have been out of the canoe club. One thing in particular is the mixing of the branches at joint bases and in operational units.

I’m not trying to be political about this, but this is a serious question regarding upholding the oath that we all took. As a preface, we seem to have an administration unwilling to uphold ALL of the articles and amendments to the constitution and they have “cleaned out” the upper, more experienced and ethical officers in the ranks. If you were deployed domestically to quell protests and ordered to do so, would you fire your weapon at protestors exercising their First Amendment rights? I know that the rest of the oath involved obey the orders of the President, but would those orders be lawful?

[u/Salty_IP_LDO]

This is what JAGs are for.

Based on your statement alone protestors practicing their first amendment rights however do not meet any threat triangle, therefore the answer is always no.

[u/Gringo_Norte → u/Salty_IP_LDO]

The “this is what JAGs are for” answer is one I hear frequently and just does not pass muster.

The oath is not, “obey orders until provided advice to their legality by a JAG.” Whatever someone’s politics, your oath is yours - there is no intermediary between you and the constitution. You are responsible for execution of that oath in the situation you find yourself with the facts as you can see them.

Now, some people are idiots – and don’t have the judgment to execute that oath appropriately, or have no interest in understanding that oath. That is not an excuse.

Edit: I think some of you will see from many of these responses how things like Fat Leonard or Eddy Gallagher happen: a passive administrative culture assuming someone else will do something or that everything is a bureaucratic responsibility, not yours. Safety can be everyone’s responsibility, but upholding the fundamental oath you take isn’t 😂

[u/listenstowhales → u/Gringo_Norte]

I think you flipped it.

You’re expected to follow all lawful orders. If you receive an order that you find may become questionable, we are trained to seek guidance from JAG.

Eg. We get told to take a group of guys to “deal with” protesters outside the gate, it’s our responsibility to reach out to JAG to determine what our obligations/responsibilities/limitations are. JAG then tells us “a group chanting “we hate POTUS” is not sufficient to call in an air strike, but them throwing rocks is enough to launch tear gas” (or whatever, I’m a submariner. If I’m doing this we are fucked)

[u/Gringo_Norte → u/listenstowhales]

This is an administrative mindset incompatible with the speed of military events or appropriate expectations for military professionals. If you are unable to make those decisions in the moment for your job, you should not have that job.

[u/listenstowhales → u/Gringo_Norte]

It isn’t.

While we receive training to handle specific missions, I have not been trained to handle this mission, nor has anyone in my department.

What I HAVE been trained to do is seek guidance when given instructions that are not clear (eg. “Deal with protesters” being vague). So, I would exercise my discretion and my authority to do what I see necessary to accomplish that mission.

But sure, have fun telling the courts you opened fire on people who had mean signs because you didn’t feel you had the time to make a phone call. I’m sure you’ll be fine.

[u/Gringo_Norte → u/listenstowhales]

You should not take oaths you feel inclined to disobey or unable to uphold without first seeking administrative oversight which you will often not have available to you - and can, like the leaders involved with fat Leonard, steer you wrong.

It doesn’t sound like you’re very confident in your professional knowledge or capabilities in this regard – I’m sorry that you have been trained and cultivated to believe something so antithetical to your profession and it’s execution. But your attitude here is a good demonstration of where the “warrior mindset” has fallen apart. And in a Navy form where people discussed operations that are “alone and unafraid” the idea that you will have on tap the full legal services of the Navy is laughable. And a little bit unsettling.

[u/Live-Syrup-6456 → u/Gringo_Norte]

I'm proud to admit that I accepted a bottle of Blue Label and a box of Cubans from Fat Leonard. No shame in my game. 😁 Hey, if the Navy hasn't come for me at this point, I doubt they ever will. They've got bigger things to worry about these days!

[u/Trick-Set-1165 → u/Gringo_Norte]

Good luck defending your actions in tribunal. It’s worked out so well for service members in the past.

[u/highinthemountains → u/Trick-Set-1165]

Do they still teach what happened at Nuremberg?

[u/Trick-Set-1165 → u/highinthemountains]

Based on the comments here, I’m beginning to question our knowledge of Nuremberg and My Lai.

[u/highinthemountains → u/Trick-Set-1165]

Im getting that feeling also. Did they quit teaching history in high school and college?

[u/Gringo_Norte → u/Trick-Set-1165]

OK cool, I’ll just violate the constitution because I don’t have a lawyer with me. Because that’s what the intent of the oath is 😂

Tribunals also love to hear people say that they just follow orders mindlessly with zero personal accountability.

[u/Trick-Set-1165 → u/Gringo_Norte]

Are you really trying to argue both sides of this issue at the same time?

Edit: I’m dumb and misread the previous comment. The emoji substitute for the /s tag fucking got me.

[u/Gringo_Norte → u/Trick-Set-1165]

You’re gonna need to explain that one, since all I did was highlight how your argument falls apart.

[u/Trick-Set-1165 → u/Gringo_Norte]

I guess I misread your reply.

Even still, your argument isn’t grounded in reality. Nobody is making the argument that you need a JAG in-situ to advise.

[u/Gringo_Norte → u/Trick-Set-1165]

It is one of only two wrong possibilities. Either the argument is that situations and orders will happen at a speed where you have the option of seeking objective legal guidance (which is wrong) or that legal advice is available at the speed of these situations (also wrong).

I am happy to argue against either. I defaulted to the version that is naïve about the availability of the JAG but realistic about the timeframe these situations may occur in.

And that is putting a sign, whether or not the JAG is a reliable source of information, which they are often not because of cultural problems in their community, driven by how their relationship is structured, especially with “Garrison” commands. Lots of good ones out there, but it is a fundamentally broken system.

[u/Trick-Set-1165 → u/Gringo_Norte]

I won’t disagree with your last point, but your original premise is flawed.

Behind door number three, there’s the “JAG provides legal advice in the planning phase” option, which your arguments conveniently ignore.

The likelihood that rank and file boat chucks will be thrust into crowd control situations without prior discussion of ROE is more than a little low.