“Stein came under scrutiny from Marine officials after saying he would not obey Obama’s orders.”
If true, yeah he is out. Unwise. Someone should have taught him to play poker.
He clarified that he was talking about unlawful orders - such as Obama sending combat troops to Syria without authorization from Congress (as required by both the Constitution and War Powers Act).
How can they get rid of an officer for saying he won’t follow unlawful orders, when it’s actually in the codes that officers MUST refuse to follow unlawful orders?
I think what’s going on here is that this guy’s leaders don’t want anybody knowing that THEY broke their oaths by following unlawful orders.
Judge Lind claimed in Lakin’s court-martial verdict that the lawfulness of combat orders has nothing to do with whether a Constitutionally-authorized Commander-in-Chief has decided to use combat force.
Somebody correct me if I’m mistaken, but doesn’t the Constitution give CONGRESS the power to provide for the common defense of the country, to declare war, to provide for the creation, maintenance, and discipline of both army and navy, etc? (Seven of the 18 paragraphs in Article I, Secton 8 give the authority for the non-maintenance decisions regarding the military to be provided for by CONGRESS)
And didn’t Congress provide for these things in the War Powers Act? Does the War Powers Act allow the CINC to send combat forces wherever he wants, to invade countries without any Congressional authorization or oversight? If so then why did Congress pass the Authorization to Use Force in the War on Terrorism (which Obama claims doesn’t exist any more) - which specifically says that the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is authorized to decide to use force?
If the Authorization to Use Force is claimed as the lawful authorization for combat operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, (potentially) Syria, etc, then the Commander-in-Chief is the CRUX of the legality of the whole operation. Without a Constitutionally-acting Commander-in-Chief there is nobody but Congress who has the authority to decide to use force.
If anybody disagrees with this, then tell me whether Leon Panetta, acting on his own, could lawfully decide to invade Iran. If so, what is the legal authorization for that?
And if Joe Biden is the only person the 20th Amendment of the Constitution authorizes to act as Commander-in-Chief, then all the decisions to use force since Jan 20, 2009 have been made by SecDef’s acting on their own - since Joe Biden has not decided to use force and the acting CINC is the CRUX of the legality of the decision to use force.
These are critical questions, and if it is unlawful for officers to even DISCUSS these things, then I would be very fearful if I was teaching any military courses regarding the chain of command... if mere DISCUSSION of the issue of lawfulness is considered dangerous to “good order”.