If I posted Facebook stuff bashing my boss, I'd get fired, too.
If I posted Facebook stuff bashing my boss, I'd get fired, too.
carguy123 wrote: So you guys were upset when the Nazis claimed they were just following order (as if you thought they had any choice), but you're upset when someone doesn't want to "just follow his orders"? And here I thought this was going to be another drinking age thread.
It is generally expressly permissible to disobey an order if you believe that it is unlawful.
Now, you would be setting yourself up for a E36 M3storm, and you damned well better have a defensible position.
Knurled wrote:carguy123 wrote: So you guys were upset when the Nazis claimed they were just following order (as if you thought they had any choice), but you're upset when someone doesn't want to "just follow his orders"? And here I thought this was going to be another drinking age thread.It is generally expressly permissible to disobey an order if you believe that it is unlawful. Now, you *would* be setting yourself up for a E36 M3storm, and you damned well better have a defensible position.
And if what the country is doing is unlawful.. you better be prepared to be against the wall with the people your country is having killed.
carguy123 wrote: So you guys were upset when the Nazis claimed they were just following order (as if you thought they had any choice), but you're upset when someone doesn't want to "just follow his orders"? And here I thought this was going to be another drinking age thread.
mad_machine wrote:Knurled wrote:And if what the country is doing is unlawful.. you better be prepared to be against the wall with the people your country is having killed.carguy123 wrote: So you guys were upset when the Nazis claimed they were just following order (as if you thought they had any choice), but you're upset when someone doesn't want to "just follow his orders"? And here I thought this was going to be another drinking age thread.It is generally expressly permissible to disobey an order if you believe that it is unlawful. Now, you *would* be setting yourself up for a E36 M3storm, and you damned well better have a defensible position.
The rest of that: if someone in he military chooses not to obey what they believe is an unlawful order then at that moment they take the full responsibility upon themselves. If later the order was found to be lawful, they are screwed.
The converse is true as well, if someone in the military chooses to obey what they believe is a lawful order and it is later found to be unlawful, then they can be in deep doo doo for that as well.
I know, Catch-22, right? I'm not sure I'd want to be in that spot, myself. You guys and gals working under that have my full respect.
But that has no real bearing on the reason the guy was booted out. It seems he never had the chance to disobey any type of order but definitely disparaged the C in C. He did that of his own free will and is now reaping what he sowed.
From the report I heard on the radio he was told several times to stop what he was doing but ignored it. That is disobeying a lawful order.
Salanis wrote: The flip side of freedom is consequences for your actions. As a citizen of this country, he is free to badmouth the president however he wants.
and even then if you make any kind of threat against the President and the Secret Service finds out about it ( especially if the President is coming to your area) you'll be picked up, questioned, maybe held ( with no habeas corpus ) until after said visit
wait, wait, wait.....
So if someone you know illegally violates the vows of their marriage and divorces their spouse and says, "now the bitch wants joint custody," you offer them a shoulder to cry on.
if someone you don't know exercises their right to free speech and their duty to question their government leaders, they're un-american traitors?
Didn't see that one coming.
I still don't think people understand that he was identifying himself as a figure of the military not only while voicing his discourse AND insubordination (the marines answer to the executive branch directly, not thru congress, right?) he was essentially using his military time and resources to do it?
also I still dont think people understand when you enlist in the volunteer military, while serving many of your civillian rights are severely modified, both contigent upon staying in the military, and contingent upon not being incarcerated outside of the civillian judiciary.
In reply to curtis73:
Sucks to be him. I feel badly for him (as much so as any random person who things suck for). Doesn't mean he didn't have it coming. He's certainly not an Un-American traitor, but he doesn't belong in the military either.
A more correct analogy would be... let's say you worked for a company and are content. They get a new CEO, and you absolutely hate the guy. You begin taking work time to post messages on a Facebook page associated with your company and telling the world what a piece of E36 M3 the new CEO is, how he's taking the company in a horrible direction, and people shouldn't buy what your company sells because the new CEO sucks so bad. Your supervisor sees this and tells you multiple times to knock it off. You keep doing it anyway. Would you expect people to feel bad for you when you get fired?
In reply to curtis73:
You've got that completely backwards.
No law is violated when a married person breaks a vow. Divorce is legal. Are you suddenly upholding a "higher" law? That's not your style.
Violating the oath of military office by refusing to follow an order from a senior officer is breaking the law.
He volunteered to suspend his Constitutional rights on this matter when he took his oath. Maybe he should have gotten a job as a community organizer instead.
Yeah, then HE could become President and someone would take potshots at HIM on Facebook. 
SVreX wrote: In reply to curtis73: You've got that completely backwards. No law is violated when a married person breaks a vow. Divorce is legal. Are you suddenly upholding a "higher" law? That's not your style. Violating the oath of military office by refusing to follow an order from a senior officer is breaking the law. He volunteered to suspend his Constitutional rights on this matter when he took his oath. Maybe he should have gotten a job as a community organizer instead.
You can bad mouth the president and government as much as you want out of uniform. It's when you're in uniform you can't as you're representing all of the military when you say things. You don't sign away all of your rights when you give your oath.
Which is why I said "on this matter".
e_pie wrote: You can bad mouth the president and government as much as you want out of uniform.
Actually, you can't. I've been involved in the courts-martialling of sailers who thought they could run their mouths however they wanted in civies.
It's long and convoluted, having to do with perception and reflection and such. But fundamentally, if you're in the military, don't shoot your mouth off running down the president, your CO, etc.
Poopshovel, you're way off base on this one. The guy got what he was told was coming. If you don't want to get hit by a train, don't stand on the tracks like an idiot.
You'll need to log in to post.
