I'm doing a Dexter rewatch over the holidays. Apparently there are a bunch of sequels/prequels now and I wanna refresh my memory before diving into those shows.;
Burn Notice. I dont know what it is but it's like watching a version of "How It's Made" from a fictional universe. All of the voiceovers about spycraft are bullshit but my brain just buys it for whatever reason.
Also, can't belive I forgot this, but "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".
The problem is that the UCMJ puts the onus on the "accuser" to prove that the order was unlawful. It's an awful lot to ask of a public servant. The whole situation sucks.
It does, however, require you to swear or affirm that you will follow the orders of the President, and the UCMJ puts the onus on the accusing service member to prove that an order is unlawful. It's a lot to ask of service members that likely only joined because they needed college money.
I, (state name of enlistee), 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)."
Edit: Ya'll are right, I didn't realize the officer oath excluded the "following orders" bit.
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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
It's pretty fucked up that we're at the point of relying on service members to decide that an order is unlawful. The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't exactly side with the military members in this instance, but it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it. Here are some crib notes from the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
United States v. Sterling, 75 M.J. 407 (a lawful order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service).
(the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order).
(an order is presumed to be lawful, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption).
(to be lawful, an order must (1) have a valid military purpose, and (2) be clear, specific, and narrowly drawn; in addition, the order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order).
Well tell canada to come burn the white house down again, maybe that will get the message across