Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Marine states he will not follow "unlawful orders".

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Check it out. It's about time!!

Marine Sgt. Gary Stein has started a facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party and has stated that he will not follow unlawful orders such as "stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.", even if issued by the President.

Stein states, ""Just because I'm a Marine doesn't mean I don't have free speech or can't say my personal opinion about the president or other public official just like anybody else. The Constitution trumps everything else."

Too bad our standing army of militarized "police" officers, judges, jurors, and district attorneys don't also feel this way, huh?

link:
news.yahoo.com...




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


The Oath they take....clearly says "i will obey the presidents orders".




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.


Not a great idea, probably best going AWOL



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


The UCMJ does protect the individual when one disobeys unlawful orders. When you are in the military you are obligated to obey LAWFUL orders and there has been many cases where UNLAWFUL orders have been disobeyed and those issuing the unlawful order(s) are punished accordingly. The problem is there is a lot of gray area when determining what is a lawful order and what is an unlawful order.

The problem is this Marine is only a sergeant(E-5) and does not have much power. If a colonel or general came out saying this, then that might make a difference.
edit on 8-3-2012 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
One can only hope that when and if that time comes our armed forces will be on the American Citizen's side, even if that does mean going AWOL. Im not too sure though with seeing all that America's police have done to the Occupy protestors, New York City's private army especially. Still, they're fellow countrymen and must have compassion somewhere.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


Indeed, what this guy may see as unlawful, may infact be a lawful order.

Legalese is different to English. Many words though the same, mean something totally different.

I feel sorry for these guys and girls who signed up to the army with the belief they were actually doing some good, making a difference, making peoples lives better. In reality, they are working for the mega rich corporations.

Shame, he will probably end up in prison....after putting his life on the line for god knows how long.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Brave guy, very stupid though.

This is precisely the belief that I feel every soldier should follow. Sadly the laws that we have caged ourselves within will forever hold us back.
Blah, blah, victims of our own design, blah, blah...

We know all this PEOPLE. Nothing save for a revolution will stop them now. Even our mighty constitutions are slowly being chipped away and we have idly been standing by and letting it happen.

And thats why its working. Because they are doing it bit by bit, very slowly. A little distraction here, another law there.

How does a minority reach a nation? This is the question he should have asked before creating that BookFace page.

Lets hope he gets a lot of 'likes'.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy



I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


The Oath they take....clearly says "i will obey the presidents orders".



Yes, but that remark is stipulated by "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice".



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by jrod
 


Indeed, what this guy may see as unlawful, may infact be a lawful order.

Legalese is different to English. Many words though the same, mean something totally different.


I doubt it. Most individuals in the military have a good working knowledge of the UCMJ and what they can and can't do.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by jrod
 


Indeed, what this guy may see as unlawful, may infact be a lawful order.

Legalese is different to English. Many words though the same, mean something totally different.


I doubt it. Most individuals in the military have a good working knowledge of the UCMJ and what they can and can't do.



They may have a basic understanding of the UCMJ, and may follow it to the best of their ability. But i can guarantee they dont understand legalese. The wording is always very clever.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Its a matter of interpretation. He swore an oath to protect the constitution first against all enemies foreign and domestic, this includes his superior officers and the office of the president. Next he swore to take the orders of the president. When these two do not work together, the first one trumps the other.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by jrod
 


Indeed, what this guy may see as unlawful, may infact be a lawful order.

Legalese is different to English. Many words though the same, mean something totally different.


I doubt it. Most individuals in the military have a good working knowledge of the UCMJ and what they can and can't do.


They may have a basic understanding of the UCMJ, and may follow it to the best of their ability. But i can guarantee they don't understand legalese. The wording is always very clever.


I disagree. I was active duty USMC from '02 - '06 and my experience with the military differs completely.

The Military, being a job where you have a good chance that someone who outranks you is going to issue an order that could get you killed in the next few seconds - you better believe that 99% of individuals within know exactly when they can an can't disobey an order.

Also, "Legalese" is not some mysterious language like you paint it to be. All particulars are defined either in the law itself, or can be referenced.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
He should have replaced "unlawful" with "immoral" or "unethical."

Everything Hitler did was legal; he never broke the law because he made the law.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy



I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


The Oath they take....clearly says "i will obey the presidents orders".




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.


Not a great idea, probably best going AWOL


I think you need to read the Constitution to understand this Marines stance.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy



I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


The Oath they take....clearly says "i will obey the presidents orders".




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.


Not a great idea, probably best going AWOL


yes...but the oath is also to uphold the Constitution and defend the Union against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So the question is...which one trumps which?

Also...going AWOL is a terrible idea. Too easy to discredit you as you a coward/runaway. Simple defiance is best. The only way "world peace" will ever be achieved is when all the 19yr old boys on the battlefield realize that this is simply nonsense, throw the guns on the ground, and go home.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
He should have replaced "unlawful" with "immoral" or "unethical."

Everything Hitler did was legal; he never broke the law because he made the law.


True...but then it's treason or something similar. If you stick w/ the legal aspect of the Constitution they can't stick you with that.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by jrod
 


Indeed, what this guy may see as unlawful, may infact be a lawful order.

Legalese is different to English. Many words though the same, mean something totally different.


I doubt it. Most individuals in the military have a good working knowledge of the UCMJ and what they can and can't do.


They may have a basic understanding of the UCMJ, and may follow it to the best of their ability. But i can guarantee they don't understand legalese. The wording is always very clever.


I disagree. I was active duty USMC from '02 - '06 and my experience with the military differs completely.

The Military, being a job where you have a good chance that someone who outranks you is going to issue an order that could get you killed in the next few seconds - you better believe that 99% of individuals within know exactly when they can an can't disobey an order.

Also, "Legalese" is not some mysterious language like you paint it to be. All particulars are defined either in the law itself, or can be referenced.


Yeah...I wouldn't really consider "legalese" to require a great deal of intellect to understand and decipher. It's an immense topic...so it may take a lot of TIME...but it's really just about as straight forward as you can get.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
He said this on Facebook, why?

Attention whore maybe


They will be sure to make an example out of him


Go get him chief


I thought that facebook was part of the problem in the grand scheme of things



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


It isn't a stupid idea nor uncommon. When in basic, we were encouraged to only execute the orders of the officers above us that were lawful. That it was our duty to know what was and what isn't a lawful order. Why is this news? Or is this marine looking for attention?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
A soldier does not have to go AWOL to uphold their oath.
Many of them are discharged favorably.
You should count your blessings for men and women who uphold their oath to the constitution. These men and women have combat experience and know what they are up against and they know how to defend freedom.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 

This is definitely a positive but unfortunately, much of it has to do with opposing Obama.

Wish they had stood up to Bush.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join