Citizens and Not Hired Guns

While members of the armed forces have limits on what they can say or do in order to maintain order and discipline, they are not without free speech rights.

I'll be interested to see what comes of this apparent controversy about a Marine in trouble for initially saying he wouldn't obey orders from President Obama but who, as the online debate continued, clarified that he would not obey unlawful orders.

I enlisted under President Reagan and my service ended during the Clinton presidency. I simply did not complain about the commander-in-chief while in uniform. I just didn't.

But I will be interested to see who complains about the Marine. When I enlisted, I was taught that my oath required me to obey the lawful orders of those lawfully placed in command over me. That is, I had an obligation to disobey unlawful orders from my actual commanders as well as an obligation to disobey even lawful orders from someone unlawfully assuming command.

Granted, that's a difficult position to put an enlisted man in and expect a judicial ruling in a moment. But nonetheless, the caveat to obeying orders exists.  "Just following orders" is no defense for actions taken.

If the context of that Marine's comments is correct and he was simply saying he would not obey unlawful orders, he's on firm ground. And you'd think that liberals especially would want a military composed of men and women who will not obey unlawful orders and who will not obey superiors who place themselves unlawfully in command of troops.

Still, the Marine should try to restrict his exercise of free speech in ways that don't address the president. Tea Party? Fine. But a Marine should know that freedom isn't free and sacrifices to defend freedom are necessary. If he must, he can wait for his enlistment term to end and criticize the commander-in-chief as much as he wants.