Calling all FR Veterans

Self | 12/11/01 | Neil E. Wright

[Neil E. Wright]

Just posted an update: First Virtual Board Meeting

Look forward to seeing everyone who's interested join us there!

Toward FREEDOM

[B4Ranch]

Where did you come up with the idea that you had the right or the obligation to disobey what you consider to be an "unlawful order" from the UCMJ?

809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;

An unlawful order would be one such as an order to kill a prisoner who is in handcuffs and leg bindings. The other term for that is murder. Soldiers are not required to obey an unlawful order to murder anyone, to beat a prisoner, to starve a prisoner. To steal something. To tell a lie.

These are the ones which come to mind easily. If you go through the UCMJ, I'm sure you will find other examples.

[A Navy Vet]

Welcome aboard. And thank you for your service, Marine.

[Snow Bunny]

Thank you Neil so much.

[COB1]

Thanks, B4.
I've got to admit that I've never studied the UCMJ.
The examples you mentioned would be common sense, but then I guess common sense must be written down for some people.

[Native American Female Vet]

"Looks like I'm in very capable company...quite the resume."

(blushing) Thanks

[Native American Female Vet]

You are so sweet.

[COB1]

And thank you for your's, Navy.
In my family it was either Navy or Marine Corps.
There were no other options.

[Snow Bunny]

Thank you for serving Cobby. Thank you for being a part of my living in a free land and being safe, (((hug )))

[COB1]

"Thank you for serving Cobby."

Heck, Snow Bunny, if I had known I was protecting you I'd have reupped and made a career out of it!
Thanks, lovely little fuzzy one.
Here's a carrot {^} and a {{HUG}} for you!
Squeeze old FallGuy for me!

[Snow Bunny]

giggle.....that is a yummy carrot and thank you for the hug.

[dcwusmc]

Do you mind if I ask when you were in? If post-WWII and Korea, you'd have been under the UCMJ rather than what used to be known as the "Rocks and Shoals" or Articles for the Governance of the Naval Service or whatever its official title was. In some ways, if I understand what I've read correctly, R&S might have been preferable to UCMJ, which is what we got after the lawyers got done.

Part of the WWII fallout was this "I was only following orders" mentality and so it came about that we were specifically told that we were NOT to obey "unlawful" orders, such as the examples noted. Privates and other non-rateds were given specific examples; NCOs and up were told we must also make judgement calls at times, that "I was only obeying orders" was not a defense that would fly.

And, as A Navy Vet told you, this effort (VCR) will not detract from or degrade my personal support for the successful prosecution of the war. I do want it done BY THE BOOK and when it's done I want ALL the Constitution respected and enforced. Were it possible I would be with those Marines now ashore in Afghan-land. Maybe they WILL recall retirees and I can. Neil would also be there if HE could. It's NEVER been about not supporting the war. It's about not letting ANYONE continue to use the Constitution as toilet paper anymore.

So here's to working together successfully!

Semper fi.

David Wright

[davidosborne]

Count me in.. let me know what I can do to help...

David

[Neil E. Wright]

Click here for an UPDATE - Announcement on the first virtual board meeting. All are invited to sit in and observe.

Toward FREEDOM

[COB1]

David, I was in from '58 to '62.
I have read the UCMJ, but it's been a long time ago.
I don't remember anything about not obeying an order because we considered it unlawful.
Maybe that came about after the My Lai incident.
About the only order I would have absolutely refused was to stick that rifle barrel in my mouth and pull the trigger.

I was not trying to damage this effort in any way.
I was trying to cover all the bases about which I know some other vets besides myself are concerned.
I know no vets on this entire forum who don't support reigning in our federal bureacracy and making it responsible to the American people as the Constitution mandates.
Speaking strictly for myself, I wanted to make sure that this effort would in no way attempt to hinder the President in his war on terrorism before I joined.

[freefly]

"When I was at Twenty-Nine Palms that survey would never have come about."

You are correct. The very question in the 29 Palms survey would never have needed to be asked several decades ago. However, things have changed. That's why supporting the Constitution is NECESSARY these days.

"Where did you come up with the idea that you had the right or the obligation to disobey what you consider to be an "unlawful order" from the UCMJ?"

From the UCMJ itself. I had multiple classes on this when I was in (81-84, 2/75 Rgr/BN). I'll look up ch and verse if you want. They were very general about where it was applied (although it was directed more toward battlefield situations: using a .50 against enemy troops, shooting at airborne under canopy, treatment of prisoners etc) but it was very specific in what it said -and it certainly didn't say that a line was drawn at any specific level of command.

"On the battlefield who gives the grunt the authority to decide what's right and what's wrong?"

Technically, the UCMJ. On a practical level it's my CO and NCO. Of course, the battlefield is a bit different than off-duty. There, you do what is necessary, and you worry about the courts afterward. We are talking about a non-combat situation (although it may be much more significant in the long run). According to the UCMJ, you better NOT obey an illegal order unless you are willing to defend yourself later in court... and there are times when I WOULD do so if it ment -in my judgement- the survival of my fellow troops. Better me be in the stockade than the loss of my unit.

"I don't know in what branch you served, but in the Old Corps you would be in the brig."

2nd75th Ranger Bn.
Better the brig than shooting civilians for not turning over the weapons that the Constitution CLEARLY states is their right to own. Which is, of course, what the 29-Palms survey was asking. I noticed that a SIGNIFICANT number of respondents would follow the Constitution rather than follow orders... including several that said that any officer that gave those orders would be their #1 target.

"Where in my posts did I say that I "trust" the government?"

You didn't, but, if you refuse to support Constitutional constraints on the fed, you imply that you are willing to do so, in spite of the fed's track record.

"I said that I'd like to go after the federal bureaucracy hammer and tong, but I would leave the President wide powers to handle the emergency crisis which exists since 9/11."

In some ways, I'd like to agree with you...but, when it comes to their use of emergency powers, the fed's track record indicates that they will use any power they get for any reason that they can justify...and they NEVER give the power up once they get it. (Do a search on the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933... note that in 1972 (?) the Senate investigation said that it was still in effect and there was nothing it could do about it. I will give you a link if you don't find one.)

Bottom line. What this org is trying to do is not specific to this administration. It is to bring ALL administrations, now and subsequent, back under Constitutional control. Exactly what the Constitution that gives them authority SAYS that they should be under. I do support the president. But my oath -and loyalty- places me in the position of supporting and protecting the Constitution, NOT necessarily the CIC and the agenda of his party.
Which should be the same place that the president should be.