Skip to comments.Marine Faces Dismissal For Anti-Obama Facebook Posts
Posted on 03/22/2012 9:40:06 AM PDT by Fennie
A Marine sergeant who started a Facebook group that is openly critical of President Barack Obama and posted comments saying he will not follow the unlawful orders of the commander in chief is facing possible dismissal from the Corps.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don’t think you can be charged for stating that you will refuse to follow unlawful orders.
There has to be a lot more than that.
This marine has cojones...and his only “crime” is openly expressing what the vast, vast, VAST majority of the Navy, Marines, Army, and Air Force thinks of the Cretin-in-Chief.
Obama is slime.
If this Marine follows through with his statement, he is in violation of his oath. Officers do not take the same oath. It’s good that he has his own opinion but there’s a time and place to voice it.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/22/marine-faces-dismissal-for-anti-obama-facebook-posts/#ixzz1prgIxfDw
His oath is to the Constitution, is it not?
—...and his only crime is openly expressing what the vast, vast, VAST majority of the Navy, Marines, Army, and Air Force thinks of the Cretin-in-Chief.—
Yep. and if anything happens to him, it would be very bad for morale.
I haven’t posted on Facebook in 8 months or more and I scrubbed my profile squeaky clean before I left. This is why. Long live internet anonymity.
Yep. I have an anonymous facebook account that I use for all that “naughty” stuff. My real profile is, frankly, boring.
As far as I am concerned, Facebook is an ‘electronic concentration camp’.
My military family loathes BHO.
I enjoy it.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will 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.And here's the Officer's Oath:
I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.An enlisted man swears to follow the order of his commander in chief according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, after swearing to protect and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
This requires an enlisted man to not follow any orders that would be unlawful or cause him to violate that oath.
An officer never swears to follow the orders of the CINC, but, that after swearing the same oath regarding the Constitution, that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which they are about to enter.
The issue with this Marine I believe is not what he has said, for he has simply said what his oath and the Uniform Code of Military Justice already require, that the orders be constitutional and lawful.
The problem they have with him is that he is being so public about it, has started his own Tea Party within the military, and they are concerned about good order and group cohesion as a result.
I likedhis group on Facebook and posted there, applauding his statements, pointing him to OathKeepers, and advising him to watch his six and his top knot.
I agree. In the back of his mind he knows what he is doing is not right but he is doing it anyway to stir up controversy. If the directives are he can not make political statements, then he should not do so. If he gets discharged that’s his bad he should have known better.
I am torn. First of all, I can’t imagine that he only wrote that he would not follow unlawful orders. I am sure there was other disparaging words about the President or the Marine Corps would not charge him. His boss is the Commander in Chief and it does not matter who it is and negative Facebook page should not be done. This would be happening if he set up a Facebook Page in 2004 dissing President Bush about the War in Iraq if he did not agree with it. This is about the Commander in Chief and the military folks who cannot bash them.
Nowhere in the Oath of Enlistment is there a requirement to follow unlawful orders. I think he worded cleverly. And may God bless him.
Can he be in uniform on Facebook? Is he speaking against Obama as a candidate, or against Obama as a CINC giving unlawful orders?
Does Obama get to decide what language is “contemptuous”? Is it contemptuous to note unlawfulness of orders?
My computer is really slow so I haven’t read the full article on this yet, but if this has anything to do with Obama and Panetta seeking xcombat authorization from the UN rather than the Constitutional, lawful requirement of being authorized by CONGRESS, then the issues he’s discussing are not contemptuous but dead earnest and absolutely in line with the officer’s oath he took.
Isn’t an armed service member stating that he or she would refuse to comply with an unlawful order in accordance with the military code of conduct? My understanding is that U.S. military law requires members not to comply with unlawful orders, and that’s why the defense “I was just following orders” is not allowed in war crime trials. I don’t know; just asking. Can someone educate me on the subject?
In my opinion, the object of 'social media' in general, and Facebook specifically is to get as many people as possible to voluntarily 'gather' together in the same 'place' and voluntarily reveal their innermost thoughts, as well as their personal information. It is structured so as to lull 'the masses' in to a sense of false security so that they will voluntarily reveal virtually everything about themselves, their families, their friends and their acquaintances.
The information gathered can be used at some time in the future by our totalitarian government to separate those who are guilty of 'double-plus-ungood' thought crimes from those who are 'only' guilty of 'regular' thought crimes.
Thought crime enforcement will be much easier with people literally turning themselves in.
And yes, maybe I DID just get a newer, more powerful tin-foil hat - so what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.