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.
His oath is to the Constitution, is it not?
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.
Nowhere in the Oath of Enlistment is there a requirement to follow unlawful orders. I think he worded cleverly. And may God bless him.
How so? What works for consciencious objectors? As long as it is a non political statement, but one based in facts and answering to higher powers, he has a duty to oppose it, much like Hitler’s army had to.
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 88—Contempt toward officials
Text.
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
This marine is not in violation of his oath. That artical applies to commissioned officers. The marine is a noncom, he can not be court martialed under artical 88.