OK. Let's go over unlawful orders again

Knoxville (Tennessee) News Reports on Birth Certificate Issue

Every such person swears to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the commander-in-chief. But, if that commander occupies the position illegally, then those personnel have an affirmative duty (under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) to disobey any order given by an unlawful authority.

No, they don't. They have a negative duty not to obey an unlawful order, regardless of its authority.

Let's go back to the Manual for Courts-Martial. 14.c(2)(a) reads, in part:

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

Illegal orders are orders issued by the proper authority that compel the soldier to commit an illegal act. George W. Bush could give illegal orders under his authority as president. So could Barack Obama. I, however, cannot issue an illegal order unless I become president or join the military. In any case, unless your orders come directly from the president (in which case, your rank is either General or Colonel in the Army--not sure about other branches of the military), the officer issuing the order is not Barack Obama.

As for the negative/affirmative stuff, it's pretty simple: If your CO orders you to guard a water pump and shoot any civilian who tries to drink from it, that's pretty obviously illegal. You do not have to shoot those civilians. But if you see the enemy trying to drink from the pump, you do not have the obligation not to shoot her.

So good luck trying to get someone to believe your interpretation of the UCMJ.

To my knowledge, it hasn't happened ... yet.

Although Obama recently increased our troop strength in Afghanistan, he has not yet attempted to start any new war.

Hasn't attempted to start a new war...yet. Is Obama like a foreign-food diner? "I'm in the mood for a Thai war tonight. I've got my leftover Côte d'Ivoire war in the fridge, so maybe I'll have that war tomorrow."

If he does, and if soldiers disobey, the Manual for Courts-Martial is on their side. (As a former Air Force law-enforcement supervisor, and leader of counter-terrorist teams, I am familiar with the UCMJ provisions and the MCM procedures.) One cannot be punished for disobeying an order if the order was unlawful.

There are two possibilities. Either you're not a former AF supervisor, or you need to brush up on the MCM. It is most definitely not on your side.

Oh, perfect timing!

New Oath Keepers Blog

Have you take an oath to defend the Constitution and will NOT follow the orders of a Usurper?

Oh, Lord. Let's take a look at the site.

http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

Huh. While it's a little startling that these people feel the need to say these things, I'm not seeing any mention of Obama. So, uh, I think that's a swing and a miss for Doc Orly.

I don't think that's proper address

Dr. Taitz's Military Action Welcomes' Officer Easterling

You don't address military officers as "officer." You use whatever rank that particular officer is. Otherwise, you can't tell a lowly second or first lieutenant from a colonel or a general. I wonder what rank he is...

I was promoted to 1LT on Feb. 2, 2009

Ah! First Lieutenant. An O-2 pay grade, the second lowest in the officer corps (which he joined straight out of basic training in this case).

Wake me up when you have a captain. I probably won't pay any attention then, either, but at least you won't be embarrassing yourself.

You say you want a revolution...

Tea Party revolution brewing

The kettle’s whistling. Tea Parties are popping up all over the country. People are flocking to these sites which have cropped up practically overnight in search of information about rallies, demonstrations and Tea Parties in their cities. The revolution is brewing!

You know, for self-proclaimed patriots, these people seem positively giddy at the thought of personally killing their fellow countrymen (and women).

Yes, Yes This Is Cause For Alarm Is Cause For Alarm

Yes This Is Cause For Alarm

Greg on his blog justly pointed at the need to restore the Militia of the several States as if we are to restore, defend and uphold the Constitution, and thereby the Constitutional Republic, against current conspiracy of usurpation and tyranny from within it is essential we work on State and Country level.

Yeah, that sounds an awful lot like treason.

10th Amendment treason

I've been more or less silent on this issue, since the 10th Amendment issue is something between the several states and the federal government, and I surely don't want to get involved in a debate between them. But a recent post has suggested that...well, see for yourself:

In respect to a situation in which, the man holding the office of President, and a majority of men holding the offices of Representatives and Senators in Congress, and a majority of men holding the offices of Justices of the Supreme Court should all league together in a conspiracy of usurpation and tyranny, they would be breaking the law, Dr. Viera justly pointed out that:

Under these circumstances, the Constitution would ex necessitate empower and require “the Militia of the several States” “to execute the Laws of the Union” against the conspirators and their henchmen and hangers-on,

Oh, goody. I do love me some armed revolution.

Blast from the past

Dr. Conspiracy (are you reading Dr. Conspiracy's blog? You should.) reminds me of this fun bit that used to be at Doc Orly's blog, but was since removed:

If the law enforcement and government of this country does not step up to the plate and doesn’t announce official investigation of this matter immediately, we need to protect ourselves, we need civilian militia, we need our own investigating services, we need new government.

I suppose I can't say anything about wanting a militia. It's one of our rights per the Constitution, and I do not want to abridge any of those rights. But when you talk about new government...well, I think someone else said it better than me:

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world...

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out...

You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait...

You say [it's from] the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead

Violence! Violence! Ooh!

New Hampshire talks Civil War against feds!
The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step today by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a "breach of peace" with the states themselves that risks "nullifying the Constitution."

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!

Unclosed parenthesis in original.

This is it folks! Doc Orly is gearing up for war. Funny, though. The bill doesn't seem to say anything about war. In the interest of fairness, I checked, and this doesn't seem to be the sort of perennial legislation like bills designed to reinstate the draft or repeal presidential term limits, so it's not necessarily drafted by a crank who does nothing but this one issue over and over.

I have reported on thisblog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.

The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!

Full disclosure: I, too, think that the US is headed for a breakup. Few countries last this long without a breakup. The only counterexamples I can think of are the Ottoman Empire and a few of the Chinese dynasties. Rome, Greece, Britain, Austria-Hungary all lasted a few centuries and then broke up, and we're reaching that age and starting to show signs of strain.

But that's very different from Civil War. I think if we continue our backbiting ways of politics, we may well see a civil war in a few decades. But we may also see something analagous to the Velvet Divorce--an agreement to split up the country into smaller countries or administrative regions larger than states but with more cultural cohesion.

There's certainly no need for war.

Also, we are not overdue for a rebellion. Orly endorses the concept of millions of people fighting and dying? Would she like to have her friends or loved ones on the front lines? Sadly, given her pathological perspective, I suspect the answer would be yes.

And this year? I'm sorry, but I've got other things planned for this year. Try back in a decade or two. No, frankly we're going to need more elections to heighten the tension in the country to a warlike level.

And one more thing: if you're going to start a war this year, how are you going to train your troops for the battle in time? Unless, of course, you're telling trops that they should disobey orders, which you said you weren't doing.

Oklahoma Treason

Doot de doot. Just checkin' the ol' internet. Wonder if...

Oklahoma Rebellion
by Walter E. Williams

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War

Awesome! Totally crazy, and not even the first sentence is over! See, my American Heritage Dictionary (4th Ed) defines civil war as A war between factions or regions of the same country. What aspect of that did the American Civil War not meet?

A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government

I see. It doesn't meet your definition, which, coincidentally, is defined in such a way that the Anerican Civil War doesn't meet it.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Right. See, wars of independence are usually declared after we know who won, not by some guy with a website. They don't say the victors write the history books for no reason, you know. And guess what? It turned out that the South couldn't operate independently of the North. So it's not really a war of independence. More of a war of emo Jefferson Davis.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution's language, in part, reads: "...that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

Yeah, good luck with that.

See, here's the thing: If you ask just about any foreigner what the American Civil War meant, you're likely to get one of two responses. Either they won't know, or they'll say that it was the triumph of the federal government over the state governments. We see these things a little bit differently in the states, but the Civil War was really a watershed moment for the federal government. It really attained ascendency during that war and tilted the balance of power far away from the state capitols.

As much as I'd like to see a greater balance between federal and state governments, I know that that ship sailed a long time ago.

I suppose this isn't treason, per se, but it is rebellion fetishism. I figured I ought to follow the situation.