Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:23:02 +0700, john B. ?
wrote:

?On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:51:09 -0500, technomaNge ? wrote:
?
??On 08/26/2011 08:17 PM, john B. wrote:
??
???
??? Interesting. Given that he has sworn an oath to obey orders of the
??? President and the officers placed over him. I wonder how he equates
??? that with Obama's possession, or lack thereof, of a birth certificate,
??? as until removed from office he is still the president.
??
??Make that "lawful orders".
??
??See oath at
??http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...thofenlist.htm
??
?
?Except that the wording is " I will obey the orders of the President
?of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over
?me".
?
?
?
??and Uniform Code of Military Justice
??
??? 892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
???
??? Any person subject to this chapter who--
???
??? (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
???
??? (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
???
??? (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
???
??? shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
??
??The requirement for the order to be lawful is discussed at:
??
??http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm
??
??and references the trial of First Lieutenant William Calley for
??following an unlawful order.
??
??If President Obama is not qualified to be president by birth,
??his orders as Commander in Chief are unlawful.
??
??But read the cites and make up your own mind.
??
??
??
??technomaNge
?
?During the review of the Calley case in 1973 the court noted that
?"For the inferior to assume to determine the question of the
?lawfulness of an order given him by a superior would of itself, as a
?general rule, amount to insubordination, and such an assumption
?carried into practice would subvert military discipline. Where the
?order is apparently regular and lawful on its face, he is not to go
?behind it to satisfy himself that his superior has proceeded with
?authority, but is to obey it according to its terms, the only
?exceptions recognized to the rule of obedience being cases of orders
?so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as
?to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness
?
?Except in such instances of palpable illegality, which must be of rare
?occurrence, the inferior should presume that the order was lawful and
?authorized and obey it accordingly, and in obeying it can scarcely
?fail to be held justified by a military court."
?
?Based on that precedent the question would be that "is reading read
?something on the Internet justification for desertion?"
?Cheers,
?
?John B.

When its known widely that the order is illegal..or the issuing officer
has no standing, its the duty of the soldier to refuse to obey it.

Your citation indicates that a person following an APPARENT legal order
is held blameless. When its known that that order was given
Unlawfully...its also the duty of the soldier to refuse to obey it.


I refused several illegal orders in the US Army. Like officers
trying to bully thier way into secure areas they weren't on the list of
authorized personel. One Lt. Broshard called our commanding general,
and REALLY got his ass chewed out.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.