> Soldiers are, in a sense, slaves. A standing army is a vast apparatus under direct control of an executive.
The U.S. military's only oath is to the Constitution of the U.S., not the executive. They are to follow the orders of the executive to the point that they are in keeping with upholding the defense of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Officers don't even take an oath to zealously follow orders, only to properly discharge the duties of their position.
While I'll grant that it's true that there is a lot of leeway and deference to the executive branch in what counts as a 'lawful order', it's incredibly concerning to me that so many people here have so little understanding of the U.S. military that they can claim with a straight face that the standing army is Obama's personal political tool.
This is true in theory, but soldiers the world over a trained simply to follow orders without question. How many soldiers when given an order, stop and think to debate the Constitutional issues, if any?
Mind you, there are good reasons for training soldiers this way - In the heat of combat, the Platoon Commander can't put everything to a vote. But this way of life does have its negatives.
Generally, in the US military, officers (which include virtually all pilots) and senior enlisted actually do take into account legal (constitutional, other laws, and rules of engagement) concerns in making decisions. Even in combat, decisions about what weapons can be used do have legal input (i.e. can we blow up a mosque? What if it's actively being used to fire on us? Or what if it just has a spotter in it relaying fire missions to a mortar team elsewhere in a crowded village square?).
Junior enlisted, yes, generally just follow orders from their immediate superiors.
Speaking of oaths, the President's oath is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," not to protect the health or safety of Americans in general. Do NSA officials take an oath like the President's?
Every NSA employee knows they're violating the constitution. Keith Alexander's statement in an embarrassment, which only calls attention to the corruption or ignorance at the top.
The U.S. military's only oath is to the Constitution of the U.S., not the executive. They are to follow the orders of the executive to the point that they are in keeping with upholding the defense of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Officers don't even take an oath to zealously follow orders, only to properly discharge the duties of their position.
While I'll grant that it's true that there is a lot of leeway and deference to the executive branch in what counts as a 'lawful order', it's incredibly concerning to me that so many people here have so little understanding of the U.S. military that they can claim with a straight face that the standing army is Obama's personal political tool.
Please see http://terminallance.com/2013/05/17/terminal-lance-president... for a description of how little reverence there is for the President within the military.