Posted on 03/15/2009 11:52:40 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Hey Jo! I couldn’t have said it better.
Thanks Darlin’.
Nice to hear from you.
So I take it you support Ehren Watada in his refusal to deploy to Iraq. He decided that the war in Iraq was illegal and refused to deploy with his unit.
“Simply put, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership,” Lieutenant Watada wrote.
His justification is the same as this group. They are politically opposed to the current administration and are pledging allegiance to a group other than the elected government. Their attempted recruitment of active duty military is contrary to good order when we are engaged in a war.
You know, I don’t think I can enlighten you. I guess I’ll see you on the other side of the line.
Thanks for making my point. If you join this group do you get a free Ron Paul 08 t-shirt?
The Constitution supplements the Declaration of Independence--it doesn't supplant it.
The problem isn't so much the military (and certainly not the Marines, as they are more steeped in history than Army or Navy), it is in the various police organizations (especially federal) who do NOT understand the problem. Organizations like the BATF and the all the new "gun-toters" (the frickin' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY has an armed enforcement branch nowadays) appear to be deliberately chosen for their willingness to obey ANY order, illegal, un-Constitutional, or not.
Then whose interpretation must one be guided by?
It means carrying out the orders of the President and those appointed over you, as long as they are legal.
There's the rub, if they are unconstitutional, then they are illegal.
No doubt these are very treacherous waters, to be navigated with extreme caution. But in the end, each person must decide where the line is. Unlike some countries, the US has always wanted thinking soldiers, from top to bottom. We win battles and wars that way...or we used to anyway.
As a former First Sergeant, I dealt with the issue of “lawful” vs “unlawful” orders now and then. Here is some information that may be “enlightening.”
“Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be “willful” under this article).
In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you’re given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.
“I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the “I was only following orders” defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President’s instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders “act at their own peril” when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the “I was only following orders” defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that “the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.”
Note they cited “a man of ordinary sense and understanding” That means each individual, in each situation, using their individual judgment (like the Oath Keepers, for example) - not the judicial, executive or legislative branch of government making that decision for them.
Feel free to act “at your own peril” should you find yourself faced with an illegal presidential order (such as violating the Constitution-which is law.) I will make arrangement to attend your trial, should I hear of it.
I find getting lectured about the Constitution interesting from a former security policemen. You spent your military career working around most guarantees of the Constitution using a sign at the front gate voiding any claim to fourth amendment rights. Nice going, Oath Keeper.
Spare me.
Where was this group when local law enforcement was confiscating weapons during Katrina?
The truth behind this group is that they care less about the constitutionality of orders and more about who give them. If this group stood for the Constitution they would have formed right after Katrina, or right after McCain-Feingold, or right after Kelo. Their "founder" doesn't mention his affiliation with Ron Paul, either.
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.