"... against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

[Cyrano]

Everyone in the military and virtually every federal employee takes the same oath which includes the words, "...to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." (Note that the oath is to protect the Constitution, not the president or any other official.)

Bush and Company are, (aside from the Civil War), the greatest enemies of the United States that have ever existed. Many among our top military people at the pentagon realize this.

So the question here is, do they (the brass) have a duty to protect us against BushCo? And if the answer is "yes," here's who's next in line. Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Senator Ted Stevens, (he president pro temp of the senate and a wingnut who represents Alaska), Condi, Rumsfeld, and so on through the rest of the cabinet.

So what do you think? Should those who took that oath stand by it?

[Dinocrat]

1. Absolutely............

...but I'm not sure we're allowed to advocate military coups here :) But yes, the military has a duty to protect us from BushCo. The problem is getting enough support from top military officials to support inaction (as this is the only other effective means besides active rebellion, which I do not advocate)

[Cyrano]

4. I'm not advocating a military coup. I'm asking what the oath really means

[Toots]

2. My part is by using persuasion whenever possible

I still believe that our vote counts. I just don't believe that they have managed to completely rig our votes. I don't think they are that good. IMHO they have messed up virtually everything they have attempted. why would that be any different. So IMO the best thing I can do to protect the constitution is by informing people of the dangers amonst us and the benefits of voting for the alternative. Clinton = eight years of Peace and Prosperity.. Bush* eight years Debt, Deficit, War, Strife & Division. Why should this even be difficult?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Why should this even be difficult?

Because maybe you're wrong about the votes?

They don't need to rig them all. Just the critical ones. Florida, Ohio, Texas to give them a safety margin.

Two companies and twenty employees can do an inordinate amount of damage if they work with a half-dozen state Secretaries of State.

It may not all be rigged, but we have to be overwhelming in our votes just to break even.

[liberal N proud]

3. Yes the should but the idea is flawed only because the regime

is in total control and has enough support with in the organization that if one group stood up they would suppress them with another.
The question is, How does one take down a corrupt government with out total disregard for authority.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

5. Remember the purge at the CIA, for example

They've been packing not only the legislative and judicial branches with right-wing salute-the-Bush-family types but also the military and intelligence organizations. Those who are loyal to the Constitution are either forced out or made so uncomfortable that they resign/retire.

[Cyrano]

6. N proud: Here is my profound answer to your question.

I don't have a clue.