Thread: UCMJ Article 88 and Article 94
Results 1 to 9 of 9
|
-
#1 UCMJ Article 88 and Article 94
11-05-2008, 11:41 AM
I know that the veterans' forum is supposed to be apolitical, and I'm saying this, not because I have any love for our new Commander-In-Chief, but because all of us took an oath and, regardless of the whims of the electorate, that oath is what makes us who we are. Towards that end, I am reminding all currently serving military personnel, myself included, of the text of Articles 88 and 94 of the UCMJ:
ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
-
-
11-06-2008, 06:42 AM
Roger that, Sir!
Does article 88 cover President-elects? :p"Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
-
11-06-2008, 08:19 AM
Blissfully,
I am neither a commisioned officer, or can my time spent on this board be considered duty.
I, KCornett, do solemnly swear 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.
I will obey the orders of the President, until they contradict with the constitution. In which case, I expect to be standing with the Officers appointed over me to rectify that situation."If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
-
11-06-2008, 08:56 AM
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
-
11-06-2008, 02:39 PM
Yep.
Don't forget the part about any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, troop.
I won't disparage him. I will express any disagreements respectfully, just as I hope to express any agreements with him (I can dream). The articles refer specifically to contemptuous words and sedition, places that we shouldn't go anyway.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
-
11-07-2008, 05:17 PM
"If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
-
11-07-2008, 05:46 PM
It does. But you can't go on the assumption that the Commander-In-Chief intends to violate the Constitution the moment that he takes office.
Look, I'm just as disappointed with this as everyone else here, but one of the critical functions of our republic is that we accept the rule of law and the expression of the will of the people, which means that when our side loses an election, we suck it up and drive on. In this case, it means that we have a new commander-in-chief and we have an obligation to obey his orders so long as we wear the uniform. If his orders become so odious that we cannot do so in good conscience, then that's another issue, but that hasn't happened yet. Whining about the unfairness of the process and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the results is what liberals do when they don't get their way. We have to be better than that, because we have a responsibility to the nation. We can't afford the luxury of being spoiled, ignorant children. That's the DUmmies' job.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
-
11-08-2008, 01:21 AM
You are correct, Sir, and I stated that I will fulfill my Oath to the utmost of my ability. If the President issues orders to for all the military to wear purple and gold, then that is what I will do. I will, as stated, follow the orders of the President, regardless of whom the President actually is, up until the point that the orders are contradictory to the Constitution. I will continue to enforce the standards and I have already corrected Jr Soldiers about disrespecting Obama. I will not do so in uniform or in front of Soldiers that are assigned under me. A group of other Senior NCOs that share my beliefs and we are having a private discussion, well that is a different situation."If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
Mini-Me Dead Age 49
Today, 06:27 PM in General Discussion