There is no time duration defined in the Oath, which I, a Marine take to mean “for life.”

In 1977, I was administered my oath of enlistment. At each subsequent promotion and reenlistment, I was administered the oath again. Having enlisted, being promoted 9 times and reenlisted 8 times, resulted in being administered the oath 18 times.
I solemnly swore that I would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I would 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.
Throughout the years that I spent on active duty and while attending a number of leadership discussions and in formal schools, we often discussed what constituted lawful orders and when and how to disobey an unlawful order.
Article 92 of the UCMJ stated clearly the word “lawful.”
Title 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > Chapter 47 > Subchapter X > Section 892
Section 892. Article 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 a 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.
All orders followed must be lawful or the individual following the unlawful order would be held accountable.
If an order is unlawful, then the individual was required to ask for the order to be restated or clarified, stating that the individual believes the order to be unlawful.
We always deferred to the U. S. Constitution and our 11 General Orders as the defining documents for what is considered lawful and the criteria to determine what is unlawful.
I see no conflict with the oath I that was administered and the Oath of the Oath Keepers, nor do I have a problem with the Oath that contains the phrase …”obey the orders of the President of the United States…” for adherence to this part of the Oath would require that the orders be “lawful.”
The Oath is and Oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
There is no time duration defined in the Oath, which I, being a Marine take to mean “for life.” [Once a Marine, always a Marine! ... Once fidelity is given to the Oath, fidelity always remains to the Oath... hence the Marine Corps motto Semper Fidelis [Always Faithful] is applicable here.
Semper Fi!
Master Gunnery Sergeant David J. De Witt (USMC RET)
_
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!





December 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
David,
Thanks for your testimonial and thanks for you Alliegance to The U.S.A. and your faith in the U.S. Constitution.
Jim
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Ooh rah Master Gunnery Sgt. Also 1st Div, 2nd Bat.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:52 am
David:
You’re obviously well educated on Constitutional obligations as an ‘oathkeeper’ and your service record impeccable. However, “the conspiracy” is accelerating to take down this once great nation. And when one peels away the layers of “the conspiracy” it becomes readily apparent that “They” are after God as in “so help me God”. This is NOT an accident as Founder William Penn decreed “men will be ruled by God or tyrants”. The time to choose sides I fear is rapidly approaching if not already past and “They” have already won…
December 25th, 2009 at 11:32 am
roger that! marine, the difference is lawful and unlawful, my oath is to our u.s.constitution. so help me god.
December 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
you nailed it right on the head all orders must be lawful according to the constitution,the sole purpose of goverment is to guard our rights under the constitution,,nuff said thanks for your service ,honor,and fidelity welcome brother…
December 27th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Beautiful words, Sir! Thanks for supporting the Constitutional rights of your fellow Americans. Kudos for knowing so much about lawful/unlawful Orders!
Ray
December 28th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Watada Discharged
Saturday 26 September 2009
by: Gregg K. Kakesako | The Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Lt. Ehren Watada was the first commissioned military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq because he believed it was an illegal war. (Photo: PD-USGov-Military)
The Army grants the officer’s resignation under “other than honorable conditions.”
First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq because he believed it was an illegal war, has won his three-year legal battle with the Army.
With little fanfare the Army at Fort Lewis, Wash., accepted the resignation of the 1996 Kalani High School graduate, and he will be discharged the first week in October.
Rather than seek a second court-martial against the artillery officer, the Army will grant Watada a discharge under “other than honorable conditions.”
December 30th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
-
Hey David,
Well said, Master Gunny !
Semper Fi, Marine.
Thank you for your service to our Republic and its people.
Welcome to Oath Keepers.
Eddie Gilbert
USMC SSgt 70-78
Peace Officer 97-present