In an impassioned and at times furious speech, departing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley defiantly proclaimed that the US military does not swear an oath to a “wannabe dictator.”

It was a bitter and pointed swipe that appeared unmistakably targeted at former President Donald Trump, who has in recent days accused Milley of “treason” and suggested that he should be put to death for his conduct surrounding Trump’s bid in 2021 to remain in office despite losing the presidential election.

“We are unique among the world’s militaries,” Milley said. “We don’t take an oath to a country, we don’t take an oath to a tribe, we don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator.”

  • fuzz00713@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The Constitution…

    United States Army Oath of Enlistment

    “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; 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”

    • auraness@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is the oath of enlistment, not the oath commissioned officers take. Officers only swear to uphold the Constitution.

      • fuzz00713@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        United States Army Oath of Commissioned Officers

        “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”

        Only difference is no promise to follow the presidents orders.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        … according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

        That last bit negates any requirement to obey unlawful orders.

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          True, they still have to uphold the constitution; but if a tyrannical government changes it or interprets it differently, then it isn’t necessarily unlawful or against the constitution to follow a tyrannical order. And that’s scary.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a pretty stupid tautology. “If they change the law, it’s not illegal.” And?

            There are no laws that can’t be changed. That’s why you need to vote in all elections.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        …according to regulations and the UCMJ

        You missed that part. If the POTUS orders them to do something against regulations (and against the constitution) then they have a duty to refuse those orders.

        • Weirdfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They really hammered this home in basic. I remember being really suprised by it, having thought as an airman basic I had to do anything I was ordered without question.

          Now, the truth is, for your everyday enlisted person, the chances of being given an actually illegal order is basically 0.

          Still, it was nice to know that there are mechanisms is place to protect me if I was told to do something truly horrible.

          • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, watching Nazis get prosecuted after World War 2 was a good wake-up call. The armed forces realized that “I was just following orders” wasn’t a viable defense, and they really started pushing the fact that service members had a duty to refuse obviously illegal orders.

      • fuzz00713@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is true. The President also swears to uphold and defend the constitution. Ordinarily that isn’t a problem.
        Sadly in Milleys case it was a problem and he was left in a a largly untenable position.

      • kirklennon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just to add, officers take a different oath that doesn’t include the obeying orders line:

        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.

      • mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You say that like they swear specifically to obey Trump’s orders. Not their fault who was voted into office.