Missourian
Diamond Member
It's already known to service members that they need not follow an unlawful order.you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.
there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.
what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.
and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.
I don't see it that way at all.
It's easy to go with the flow.
It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.
The examples are as long as history itself.
Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."
Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.
If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?
It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.
It is already known to Americans that the Constitution protects civil rights...yet there is an ACLU.