I hope Brett Bair gives ample coverage to the relevant punitive sections of the UCMJ, which apply to soldiers who refuse to follow orders. Beginning, perhaps, with Articles 87 (Missing Movement), 88 (Contempt toward Officials) and 94 (Mutiny and sedition).
And I hope he dwells at length at the penalties associated with these violations.
It is NOT up to this soldier to decide what orders he is or is not going to follow, especially given that the deployment orders are both lawful and appropriate.
I agree with you. I’m sure however, that this soldier feels he is doing his patriotic duty by challenging what he sees as a threat to this nation from within. I just wish that we could see concerted civil efforts to force 0bama’s hand. Enough of them, and it will be hard not to notice.
It is NOT up to this soldier to decide what orders he is or is not going to follow, especially given that the deployment orders are both lawful and appropriate.
+++++++++++++++++
Isn’t this his whole case...if orders were given by an illegitimate Commander in Chief?
It certainly is up to the individual to decide. Only in a Nazi Germany would one expect otherwise.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
It is NOT up to this soldier to decide what orders he is or is not going to follow, especially given that the deployment orders are both lawful and appropriate.
What if it was an order to execute American civilians?
Or to fire upon Tea Party protesters?
One of the nice things about the UCMJ is that you get to defend your actions under it, it isn't a case of if you are charged, you are automatically guilty, despite what people like John Murtha have tried to ram down our throats.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
The essential attributes of a lawful order include: (1) issuance by competent authority -- a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order; (2)communication of words that express a specific mandate to do or not do a specific act; and (3)relationship of the mandate to a military duty. [T]he accused may challenge an order on the grounds that it would require the recipient to perform an illegal act or that it conflicts with that person‘s statutory or constitutional rights.“ United States v. Deisher, 61 M.J. 313, 317(2005)"
I'm not sure where I come down on this, but I think cases like this point to one of the reasons why some of the most effective military forces in U.S. history were those that didn't answer to a centralized government or national command structure. I'd cite the Green Mountain Boys, Daniel Morgan's Virginia Riflemen, and later the Texas Rangers as good examples of this.
Every heard of the Mi Lai massacre?
It was drummed into every officer’s head at the academy, and yes, it is absolutely up to the officer to decide whether the orders issued are lawful or not.
The officer takes an oath to be loyal to the Constitution, not to his CO, the Pentagon, or the President.
The major is doing his job.
By the way, Obama can provide access to the documents before bedtime on the East Coast, and the Major can be on a plane to his post about 30 minutes later.
This is a simple matter to be resolved, legally. The onus is on the President to provide proof that his eligible to be Commander in Chief. I can tell you that every officer is under the same burden prior to their being provided their commissions as officers in the military.
This is a no brainer. I’m surprised more officers haven’t done this first. Shows that the educational standards at the academies are starting to slip.
Well he hasn't missed a movement, or even said that he would. He's a reservist, he has his full first amendment rights, although I don't see how asking him to demonstrate his eligibility quite gets into "contempt", it's not like he's calling him a Long Legged Mack Daddy, or a Communist. It doesn't fit the definition of Mutiny, because there has been no act of violence or refusal to obey an order. Similarly it doesn't fit the definition of Sedition, again because their has been no revolt, violence or other disturbance. Going to court is a very unusual way of commiting either Sedition or Mutiny.
Now if he refused orders, that could be mutiny, but it would be an unlikely charge given the circumstances, and it's more clearly "failure to go".
especially given that the deployment orders are both lawful and appropriate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If they originate from a usurper and fraud in the presidency, just at what point do the orders become lawful?
The man has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Thank God, there are **men** ( and a brave little woman dentist) with the testosterone to do it.
Not if Obama is a fraud, they aren’t.