Stein's latest post on facebook: Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial. AFTP joins the Oath Keepers in drawing a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”

 

And in the constitution, the POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military. So, in that regard, he broke his oath.

And in the constitution, the POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military. So, in that regard, he broke his oath.

 

How so?

:thumb: Thanks for educating me. So would you know if the drumhead court-martial exists, or if it has ever existed in the US military? I've always been curious of that.

 

I've heard the term before but did not experience it happening while on active duty. Keep in mind that there are three levels of court martial: Summary, Special and General. A Summary Court Martial is the lowest level of court martial and with one exception, is not considered a federal conviction. It's more of an administrative procedure, than a real trial although the UCMJ applies and the military rules of evidence are to be followed. The Summary Court Martial Officer is the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel, and doesn't even have to be an attorney (or Judge Advocate in military language). However, at every base/station that I was stationed at, the Commanding Officers always used Judge Advocates as the Summary Court Martial Officers. But it's very possible that during times of war and in the field, a CO might not have ready access to a Judge Advocate and could convene a Summary Court Martial using a non-Judge Advocate as the Summary Court Martial Officer. If so, some might consider such a drumhead court martial. The punishment at the Summary Court Martial level is rather limited.

 

Here is a link to an article that does a decent job explaining the various levels of Court Martial: The Difference Between Levels of Court-Martials - Military Legal Articles

Edited March 27, 201214 yr by leatherneck

I've got to ask this: Are you really Lt. Caffey? Did you work on a case with Demi Moore once? :lol:

 

 

Nope and nope again (the second nope being particularly disappointing ). While the movie was entertaining, the legal stuff was extremely unrealistic based on my experiences.

And in the constitution, the POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military. So, in that regard, he broke his oath.

 

 

Actually, military members are not permitted to follow an illegal order even if it comes from POTUS. Think Nuremburg Trial here. If the POTUS gives an order that violates the Constitution, a law of war, or any other binding law, military members are not permitted to follow it and must refuse. Refusing to follow the illegal order of a superior would not be breaking the oath taken. Of course, that military member better be right about it being an illegal order or else he/she is in deep kimchi.

Edited March 27, 201214 yr by leatherneck

And in the constitution, the POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military. So, in that regard, he broke his oath.

 

Also we need to keep in mind here, the issue is not whether Stein is advocating that the military not follow an order from POTUS that Stein thinks is illegal. The issue, at least with Marine Corps and I think the Marine Corps is correct, is whether Stein is violating a military directive; specifically http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf. Heck, if Stein's Facebook page was supportive of President Obama's decisions and orders, and he was encouraging active duty personnel to get involved in President Obama's campaign, he very well could likewise be in violation of the directive.

 

Stein's position is that the directive violates his Constitutional right of free speech. I'm no Constitutional law expert but I believe Stein has a losing argument.

Nope and nope again (the second nope being particularly disappointing ). While the movie was entertaining, the legal stuff was extremely unrealistic based on my experiences.

 

Of that I have no doubt. :thumb:

Stien is in the wrong. Actually, I think the Military has been too lenient with this guy. He should have been ordered to take it down as a violation of code, and if he didn't he should have been Court Martialed.

 

As LN said, this has nothing to do with refusing to follow an unlawful order, this is an individual violating code.

I can tell you from experience how it is. Once I almost got in trouble for helping a boot shave his head. I was told that what I did was destruction of government property.

 

That made me chuckle. So typical Marine Corps. I love it. I heard my Top tell a young Lance Corporal who was dating a gal seriously and talking about getting married: "If the Corps wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one!":D

The gentleman received an "other than honorable discharge" today.

The gentleman received an "other than honorable discharge" today.

 

From what I know of the situation is OTH was well deserved. For those not aware, an OTH is an administrative discharge, as opposed to Dishonorable or Bad Conduct discharges which are given by court-martials.