On January 1, Navy Cmdr. Robert A. Inexperienced, Jr., publicly shared an open letter that that seeks accountability over the hurt attributable to the Division of Protection’s (DOD) implementation of the now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Over 35,000 individuals have joined the unique 231 signatories of the letter by signing a petition that accompanies the Declaration of Navy Accountability.
Six months later, on July 1, the writer of Defending the Structure Behind Enemy Traces, has now filed a proper criticism in opposition to the Admiral accountable for Recruiting for the Navy. In a pair of X posts this morning, readers can discover Cmdr. Inexperienced’s “OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS In U.S. Navy SEALs v. Biden.”
Don’t let the Navy off the hook with a light faucet on the wrist. That is the primary case in our lifetimes that would altar the custom of courtroom deference to the need of tyrannical navy commanders.
Don’t let this swimsuit settle. The battle for #militaryaccountability should go on! https://t.co/7cpCJwGNTu
— Chase Spears (@DrChaseSpears) July 2, 2024
Inside his criticism, Cmdr. Inexperienced alleged the “illegal deprivation” of his First Modification rights granted by the Structure and a violation of 42 USC § 1983.
The criticism particularly identifies Rear Admiral James P. Waters, the commander of Navy Recruiting Command. On June 26, Navy Recruiting Command blocked Cmdr. Inexperienced from commenting on its official social media account hosted by X, previously often known as Twitter.
Talking as a citizen of america who emphasizes that his views don’t replicate these of the Division of Protection or Division of the Navy, Inexperienced typically criticizes the Navy’s illegal participation within the now-rescinded 2021 navy COVID-19 shot mandate. For him, the mandate had a severely unfavourable affect on recruiting and pressure readiness.
The Gateway Pundit spoke with former U.S. Military public affairs officer Dr. Chase Spears, who agrees with Cmdr. Inexperienced as evident by his reply to the Navy commander’s X put up. Having served within the public affairs profession subject for 20 years, Dr. Spears acknowledged “witnessing a debate within the public affairs realm about whether or not or not instructions can, and will, block customers.” Historically, he mentioned, the First Modification awarded a layer of safety to service members commenting in a private capability on numerous social media platforms.
“There are fundamental guidelines of engagement that enable those that handle official navy social media accounts to cover or delete feedback which are profane or obscene, that violate individuals’s privateness or name for violence in opposition to anybody,” he mentioned, explaining that “Individuals however have the proper to touch upon and even criticize official authorities messaging.”
Nevertheless, in recent times, administration of official navy social media accounts has “gone by way of an evolution, turning into extra Orwellian in observe,” Dr. Spears shared. Whereas Individuals ought to proceed to have the proper to interact and debate official navy speaking factors, he mentioned, “Individuals who differ from the social gathering line are more and more being seen with a way of reprobation by those that run navy social media accounts.” This, he mentioned, is “altering the beforehand understood guidelines of navy social media engagement.”
In response to Dr. Spears, “the talk has moved farther away from defending the rights of what individuals need to say on the social media platforms, significantly once they’re addressing a authorities account.”
“There’s a way more progressive mindset amongst commanders and public affairs officers (PAO),” he mentioned. “They don’t need individuals hijacking their messaging, criticizing their messaging, or giving a motive for individuals to doubt their messaging—so in the event that they don’t like what somebody has say, they’re more and more open to hiding feedback and even blocking a vital person’s account.”
Within the latter a part of his profession as a PAO, Dr. Spears seen that within the navy public affairs fields of observe, “those that have a constitutional perspective [that protects free speech] are discovering themselves outnumbered, or no less than outgunned by way of authority and affect.” And people who take a censorious method, he mentioned, “consider it’s truthful and moral to dam customers and delete the feedback that go in opposition to their narrative.”
In response to him, “their actions [against Cmdr. Green] are a violation of the working doctrine of the Protection Division, which is most disclosure, minimal delay.” As Cmdr. Inexperienced identified in his formal criticism, the Supreme Court docket case O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier confirmed that “the deprivation of a citizen’s first modification rights from a government-controlled social media account shouldn’t be permitted below legislation.”
“Case legislation is clearly on Cmdr. Inexperienced’s aspect,” Dr. Spears defined. “Bottomline, the authorized, moral observe must be that you just don’t block individuals for saying one thing merely since you or your commander doesn’t prefer it. That undermines the Constitutional function of what the navy exists to guard.”
A Historical past of Violating Constitutional Rights
Dr. Spears famous that commanders, like Rear Admiral Waters, are answerable for every part that occurs of their group. “Nevertheless,” he identified, “they’ll typically keep away from points which may violate coverage, precept, and even the Structure to maintain from rocking the boat.”
One such subject that’s famous by Cmdr. Inexperienced in his Article 1150 criticism was associated to the 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate:
“Below Rear Admiral Waters’ watch, the OPNAV N131 Non secular Lodging Evaluation Crew developed and executed a Normal Working Process (SOP) to subject a template denial to every Non secular Lodging Request submitted by Navy sailors with out doing the individualized evaluation required by legislation and navy regulation.”
Moreover, “The actions taken by Rear Admiral Waters and his group had been so flagrant that they grew to become the cornerstone proof within the SEALs v. Biden federal lawsuit over spiritual liberty in america Navy.”
Dr. Spears famous that “this matches the mannequin now we have seen of flag officers throughout the Division of Protection.” He defined, “They haven’t been held accountable for his or her actions, forcing the injection and violating individuals’s spiritual rights.” Regardless of their tyrannical enforcement of an ineffective “vaccine,” he identified, “none of them had been demoted, and none of them had been fired, however lots of them had been promoted.”
“What does that inform everybody else beneath you?” he requested. “It sends a robust message that if you wish to get promoted, if you wish to have larger ranges of command, you needn’t fear about what the legislation says, however quite fear about what your larger command tells you to do.”
“Individuals need to ask themselves, is that this the sort of navy management that you really want?” Dr. Spears requested in conclusion.
The Gateway Pundit additionally spoke to Coast Guard Vice Admiral (ret.) William “Dean” Lee. Though he elected to take the shot, VADM Lee considers himself “in lockstep” with Cmdr. Inexperienced. “I took it as a result of I trusted it,” he mentioned. “That belief is now misplaced, [and] the heavy-handed method wherein the mandate was executed is shameful.”
“As soon as it was found that vaccinated service members had been nonetheless getting COVID and the nation had already gotten previous the curve of the pandemic as a result of everybody had just about had it already,” he mentioned, “it’s then that management did not take a strategic pause to replicate and confirm whether or not enforcement of the vaccine was nonetheless a good suggestion.”
What’s extra, he mentioned, “management continued to stay to their weapons even with all of the publicity and emergence of info in regards to the unintended effects exacerbated, if not induced, by the vaccine itself.”
Relating to Rear Admiral Waters, VADM Lee mentioned, “I don’t know what was in his thoughts on the time, however I do know this … disobeying an order or going in opposition to the grain of what the establishment needs to do doesn’t bode effectively for members of the navy, however these few which are prepared to face their floor on precept, resembling Commander Inexperienced, are admirable.”
VADM Lee asserts, “Present management wants to look at what went proper, and what went improper right here.” In response to him, “They’ve an obligation of care to return and evaluation each course of, each coverage, and each choice made through the COVID-19 roll-out and ask themselves what might have been carried out higher.”
“This wasn’t a couple of shot. This was about rather more than that,” he argued. “It was about fact, belief, and a authorities unwilling to confess that this might have been dealt with much better.”
“If I had been nonetheless on lively responsibility, I might need to know the reply to those issues. Allow us to endeavor to not make the identical errors once more,” mentioned VADM Lee.
