This comes up a lot, but sharing from the USMC. The Oaths, and their differences.

In the situation WO Thompson was in, (hypothetical) had he ordered his Marines to fire on the civilians, how would his charges counter his unlawful order when the oath of enlistment states, "obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over" without being insubordinate?

Considering the Nuremberg Defense, just following orders, how would you defend the actions of those following the order to fire on civilians given the language in the Oath of Enlistment?

Capt Richard I P. Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS

Sgt. Kennedy, I really don't see any difference.. an OATH (of an enlistment or of an office) is a commitment, a promise, its your name, its your word.. Wish our Politicians were as serious about the Oath of office, just as serious, as committed as our Marines, our Armed Forces are !! Being ordered to unnecessarily KILL 10 civilians ??? Morally, I believe in Warrant Officer Thompson actions.. Marine policy is to also defend the innocent, the little guy...

All leaders are empowered to disobey unlawful orders. Officers, in contrast, are charged by the oath to remain loyal solely to a document and to those demonstrating their loyalty to it. The silence on whose interpretation of that document is to be taken is pointed: we are charged to be come our own arbiters of right and wrong and charged with the protection of the foundational document of the republic.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, Thanks for posting on this important topic, did you see my jawing about this on the other thread today?