Intrusive Leadership vs Lawful Order

[HueyCobra8151]

That's kind of what I was hoping you'd say. Now, next time you feel it necessary to keep one of your troops from going home for the day (or night), do so. In fact, don't stop at one day, take two or three days of liberty away. We'll see how long you remained commissioned after that.

I didn't say that you should keep the Marines or sailors under you any longer than is necessary, and liberty should always be granted when work and higher authority permit.

I am simply saying that according to the Marine Corps Order on Leave and Liberty, Liberty is a privilege, not a right.

The Marines and sailors sweating it out in fighting holes in Iraq right now have no rights to liberty.

From the first class I had in Bootcamp on Liberty, I have had it drummed into my head that "Liberty is a privilege, not a right."

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Hey, no worries. Just find a sh!tbag and deny his liberty for a week. If he doesn't deserve liberty, he doesn't deserve it. You'll obviously be in the right and probably commended. If you really believe what you write, then take it the next step and show us.

You've yet to show us that the Marine Corps Order on Leave and Liberty shows us that liberty is a privilege. This is of course, your interpretation.

Let's not compare apples and grapefruit with the guys over in Iraq, ok?

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I don't understand how liberty can NOT be a privilege. It is something that is granted by your chain of command.

I mean, even a Lance Corporal can, to an extent, deny liberty to a Private (eg: "You aren't going out in to town until you field day your room.")

For liberty to be a right, it would have to be an absolute. There would have to be an absolute time that work commenced and ended, and that time would have to be concrete. If you were to be forced to stay past that time, it would be in violation of your "right to liberty."

If liberty was a right, then you wouldn't see Marines(/sailors) turning off their cell phones in their off time to avoid being called in.

Does that mean that liberty should be secured for no reason? No. I am simply saying that every time anyone in your chain of command forces you to work beyond normal working hours, it is an example of your "privilege to liberty," being revoked or encroached upon in some way.

Edit: The intial poster asked:

So, my question is this. Is this intrusive leadership legal? Is this a lawful order?

My response is that liberty is a privilege that can be revoked. So it is therefore a lawful order, am I incorrect? Is it not true that if someone didn't want to comply with the intial order to do ORM worksheets for liberty, the command could have them at work all weekend instead? Perfect example of why liberty is (and has to be) a privilege extended by the command.

 

[KBayDog]

You all need to get over yourselves.

"Liberty" is something training commands got together and simply made up. It is part of the training command training day - something that the training commands invented to hold over our heads; i.e., a tool to turn us into Tools. It is a term that gives us the illusion of actually having time to ourselves. It is kind of like what George Carlin says about coloring books - be as creative as you want, but stay within the lines...

It was also invented to provide amusing message board fodder.

(Brought to you by KBayDog...On Leave Since 3/28...)

 

[flynsail]

I don't understand how liberty can NOT be a privilege. It is something that is granted by your chain of command.

Are you saying rights cannot be granted?

For liberty to be a right, it would have to be an absolute. There would have to be an absolute time that work commenced and ended, and that time would have to be concrete. If you were to be forced to stay past that time, it would be in violation of your "right to liberty."

Rights cannot be taken away?

My response is that liberty is a privilege that can be revoked. So it is therefore a lawful order, am I incorrect? Is it not true that if someone didn't want to comply with the intial order to do ORM worksheets for liberty, the command could have them at work all weekend instead? Perfect example of why liberty is (and has to be) a privilege extended by the command.

This topic just seems to be a matter of semantics to you. Not related to my previous sentence, but in the articles you provided earlier (Steve W. pointed out "normally" and "normal"), also note the words "shall" and "should". If you can read those articles again knowing what they mean, you might be able to understand military legal jargon better.

 

[Cyclic]

Wow...talk about confusing arguments, I see it very simple, you are all mixing two different things, work day and liberty. If the squadron needs you to be there there's no such thing as liberty, even if your work day goes well into the double digits, multiple of days in a row, weekend or no weekend...CO's call, just like in the boat.
Now...the big difference is that if there's no need for that guy to be there you can't just take his weekend liberty away and make him go to work, that's restriction, and it better be a result of NJP....time to break out the UCMJ!!

Right? Privilage? .....Whatever...a little bit of both?

 

[Brett327]

Wow...talk about confusing arguments, I see it very simple, you are all mixing two different things, work day and liberty. If the squadron needs you to be there there's no such thing as liberty, even if your work day goes well into the double digits, multiple of days in a row, weekend or no weekend...CO's call, just like in the boat.
Now...the big difference is that if there's no need for that guy to be there you can't just take his weekend liberty away and make him go to work, that's restriction, and it better be a result of NJP....time to break out the UCMJ!!

Right? Privilage? .....Whatever...a little bit of both?

Concur.

Brett

 

[Mayday]

I think they pumped the "priviledge not a right" mantra into us in boot camp to groom us for mindless obedience. However, being a human being that can use his mind, I still believe that liberty is definitely only a priviledge granted by the command, distinctly different than the RIGHT of leave. And yes, it can be revoked by anyone in that chain. My small section (15 Marines) once had to work 3 weeks straight, with an alternating 2-guys-get-12 hrs off every 4 days, simply because the mission had to be accomplished, and we were "short personnel." That defficiency and remedy for it were determined by a SSgt, who was challenged up the chain by several LCpls who had plans that were obviously curtailed, but the CO ended up backing him completely and without compromise (though who knows what he had to answer for behind closed doors). All of us were "compensated" later with an extra day tacked onto a weekend, making it a "free" 72, but it was made clear that this was only due to the generosity of the command, so to speak.
Bottom line I learned: liberty is definitely only a priviledge - granted usually by default yes - but a priviledge just the same. The SSgt's order to cank liberty was lawful.

WHICH brings up another detail of interest! Something they stressed in Sgt's course a few yrs ago was the difference between a lawful and a direct order. We enlisted types are restricted to lawful ones - those already provided for by previously established laws, regulations, or procedures. But correct me if I'm wrong, you hossifers can give a direct order, meaning YOU are the sole determinant at the time that the order is given under proper grounds (i.e. PVt -go jump off that cliff) and without question, a subordinate must obey. Granted you'll have to put your commission on the table if you were totally out of line, but your training and your 4-yr degree says that the government can trust you to make seemingly out-of-the-box decisions that directly affect others' lives.
I saw that in OIF where (I can't detail) but we all assumed a Capt was out of his mind when he had us do something; but we did it, and it turned out to have quite probably saved our lives.

Edit: And didn't seem "lawful" at the time, was my point...

 

[phrogdriver]

All orders, "direct" or not, have to be lawful. "Kill that unarmed child!" would be illegal to issue or to follow, even if it was direct.

Maybe a JAG would correct me here. But an order is an order. The phrase "direct order" is shorthand for, "Really, I'm not s*&ting you. Do it now." If I said,"Go to S-1 and square that away," it's a lawful order, and still binding. I probably would not be able to legally enforce a charge on that if the Marine failed to obey it in a timely fashion, because it might not have been explicit enough. If I said,"I'm giving you a direct order to go to S-1 and take care of that s*&t," and you didn't, I'd have a better chance of enforcing it. Nevertheless, both statements are equal on their face. Of course, chain of command also comes into play here--for example, another commander can't just step in and order another to move unless the situation dictates it somehow.

Nothing relieves us of our obligation to follow orders which are legal on their face. Combat is different in this regard only in that there may not be time to fully explain the reasoning behind them. That's why compliance with them needs to be full and immediate.

 

[EODDave]

The point of this post was not is the right to revoke liberty or not Lawful or unlawful. I was asking if having to report what you are going to do on liberty was lawful. This was an ORM gone wrong post, not a is liberty a priviledge post. Anyway..

 

[Fly Navy]

EODDave, here, use this:

 

[KBayDog]

EODDave, here, use this:

Did the neutral third-party journalist have advance warning of this thread hijack, and, if so, did he decide that it was more important to maintain journalistic integrity than to forewarn us readers about the impending jack?