… Because I could not and would not bring myself to obey the orders of a Commander-in-Chief who has decided he can arbitrarily murder American citizens without benefit of due process, trial by jury, or any other quaint, Constitutionally-protected rights.
I am quite serious about that. Were I still active duty today, I would be drawing up my resignation paperwork and submitting it for the earliest date my contract would allow.
And lest you think I am overreacting, consider this news report, courtesy of Say Uncle. As you can see from the comments at his post, there is some disagreement as to the meaning of "targeted", and whether or not the drone(s) in question are armed or whether or not those behind the control of those machines have any intention of employing them as weapons platforms against the supposed Los Angeles cop killer, but given the Department of Justice white paper, it obviously is not outside the realm of possibility any more.
I dare say use of armed drones, without benefit of even so much as a kangaroo court trial, against American citizens on American soil – should such a thing come to pass – well and truly takes Obama far beyond the mere title of "tyrant".
Read the white paper for yourself – it is not short, and the author(s) very carefully couch their language in all manner of mealy-mouthed legalese rationalization, but the intent is more than clear. Granted, this is simply one symptom of the overall decline of our American experiment, but it would count as my own personal Rubicon.
Of course, this news report, courtesy of my father, would count as another Rubicon, if it is true:
Even discounting the numerous – and completely intentional – limitations on using United States military forces within the country’s borders, the fact that such a question is (supposedly) being seriously asked anywhere in the military is indicative of a very serious problem within its command structure and our government itself.
For now, all of these various datapoints are hovering at the very border of "believable" and "conspiracy theory", but there is an interesting aspect to the latter phrase that people always forget – just because you have a theory that there is a conspiracy does not automatically mean it is not true. The phrase "conspiracy theory" has developed a lot of negative connotations over the years, but conspiracies do and have happened, and theorizing about them is the first way to discover them. Is there a conspiracy going on right now? Hell if I know. But I do know that a country that has purchased in excess of 1,790,154 firearms in the past month alone is not a country gearing up to turn all of those firearms back in…
…Neither is it a country preparing for a particularly peaceful future, either.
If my understanding is correct, that question has been a staple with the officer corp for decades. Even Washington put down the whisky rebellion. It’s a useful question for teaching constitutional principles. What would be new is using it for fire/hire decisions.
Some officers won’t, some will. Most of us take our oath to the Constitutuion very seriously. Some, however, will do whatever it takes to advance their careers. Read “Once An Eagle” to see the differences among memebers of the Officer Corps.
FWIW, I wasn’t commissioned via a service academy or college ROTC. I went to OCS because my First Seargent said I wasn’t “NCO material.” Go figure.
Certainly glad I’m not mid-career mid-grade or senior enlisted during these times…
Linoge, if you were still in the military and you made an announcement that this would prompt you to tender your resignation, I would encourage you very strongly to stay.
If good men leave the military over this, only the scumbags will be left, meaning nobody will remain to point out “Hey, this thing we’re doing here? This is wrong, and we shouldn’t be doing it.”
@ Yu-Ain Gonnano: I honestly do not know if it is or not, but in my four years I never heard of it (though I only was an LtJG and did not make it out of being a Division Officer), and my father was likewise shocked (after getting to retirement as a LCDR).
If the question were phrased as, “Would it be lawful to…”, I could see using it as an education tool. As it is, it seems far too much like a loyalty test of old.
@ MAJMike: Unfortunately, the upper brass is invariably populated by the latter type of officer, which rather explains why this question is coming up at all.
NROTC here; cheap way to do college
.
@ rickn8or: Seriously. Theirs are going to be some interesting times in the near future, I fear.
@ Volfram: While that is a very compelling argument – and I mean that in all seriousness – the problem is that it is the higher brass making the point of asking the question of the up-and-comers, and if it is legitimately being used as a discriminator for promotions, I would either have to lie to a promotion board, or be ‘set aside’ in favor of a ‘more qualified candidate’.
And having experienced four separate COs in my four years (just the way the rotation cycle works), I can honestly tell you the rot extends at least down to the O6 level, if not farther.
What can an O2 do about that?
@ MAJMike:
That’s funny. I was in college when I joined up the the Army Reserve, but I wanted to be a non-com and have more grunt-work and fun and no paperwork on my weekends, expecting to have a lot more paper and desk-jockey time in my normal job. I didn’t want to be an officer. Dunno which I could have done better.
@ Rolf:
I was in “Gradual” School when I enlisted in the Army National Guard. Ended up retiring after 24 years service, 15 of which were as a full-time readiness technician.
Had never intended to be a career military guy, it just sort of happened. Got to go to interesting places and destroy things while getting paid for it.