Lieutenant Colonel Scheller in the Brig

Status
Not open for further replies.
raimius said:
That seems like an overly broad order, potentially illegal. Technically, the order forbid him from wishing people "happy birthday" or posting NFL scores on Facebook. I don't think that would pass any sort of 1st Amendment scrutiny.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, although I see your position.

When someone in your unit has violated, repeatedly, standing orders, regulations, or directives, the commander has the authority to order the individual to refrain from said activity. Does it infringe upon their first amendment rights? The answer is no. The SCOTUS has long held that the military is a special agency and as such, has special rules and regulations and they are legal. There's plenty of precedent that applies.

If there were no other way to wish a family member "happy birthday" except to use the internet, the commander can easily allow that. As for posting football scores, there's no inherent right to do that. More to the point, I'd love to see the actual order because as it was reported, he was prohibited from using all social media. I'm unaware of whether or not he was prohibited from accessing the internet.

From my limited view/knowledge, I think the order is legal. Of course, I'm not a lawyer so...
 
flieger83 said:
Does it infringe upon their first amendment rights? The answer is no. The SCOTUS has long held that the military is a special agency and as such, has special rules and regulations and they are legal. There's plenty of precedent that applies.
Click to expand...

You're not quite exactly right. We'll probably need a case that draws where the line is.

Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.”

He observed:“t is indisputable that the tradition of our country, from the time of the revolution until now, has supported the military establishment’s broad power to deal with its own personnel. The most obvious reason is that Courts are ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have” (Warren 1962:186–187).
 
Do you have the citation for that Warren suggestion? Was it the dictum in his decision or the ruling? Was he majority or minority on the decision?
 
It is not part of a decision. It is an excerpt from a speech that Warren gave at the NYU School of Law in 1962 called "The Bill of Rights and the Military".
 
kinnem said:
I would further add that the Lt Col did what he did
1. while in uniform and
2. mentioning his military rank
Click to expand...
I think this is what a lot of people are missing. In basic we were told all the time that no matter what we post on social media, DO NOT DO IT IN UNIFORM. Obviously, we were also taught the rest of the rules, but the uniform one came up in almost every single briefing. Whether or not you agree with what Lt Col Scheller said has nothing to do with the fact that he knew of and still chose to break this rule.
 
Old Enlisted Marine said:
No pun intended, I was pointing out that there are regular Navy Corpsman. Not the FMF type. I’m sure there is a better way to say regular Corpsman but I’m not familiar with it.
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought you were calling us big like elephants. Blue side. Green side. I was both.
 
He should donate it to Navy & Marine Corps Relief Fund and the sister service equivalent non-profits, DAV, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Fisher House, etc. This is just me wanting money to go where it can be used by folks who need it.
 
I can't get over the whole Pipe Hitter thing.

Do they not realize that 90% of people who see that term believe that it is either a misspelling of pipe fitter or a reference to someone who smokes a lot of crack or meth. I assume the contributions have all come from the remaining 10%.

The fact that the campaign has raised as much $ as it has tells me this country has more to be embarrassed by than our last 18 mos. in Afghanistan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top