On January 1, Navy Cmdr. Robert A. Inexperienced, Jr., publicly shared an open letter that that seeks accountability over the hurt brought on by the Division of Protection’s (DOD) implementation of the now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandate.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 Military Accountability.
Six months later, on July 1, the writer of Defending the Constitution Behind Enemy Lines, has now filed a proper criticism towards the Admiral answerable 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 gentle faucet on the wrist. That is the primary case in our lifetimes that might altar the custom of courtroom deference to the need of tyrannical navy commanders.
Don’t let this swimsuit settle. The struggle 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 referred to as Twitter.
Talking as a citizen of the USA who emphasizes that his views don’t mirror 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Protection or Division of the Navy, Inexperienced typically criticizes the Navy’s illegal participation within the now-rescinded 2021 navy COVID-19 shot mandate.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 detrimental impression on recruiting and drive readiness.
![](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/navy-recruiting-command-screenshot-copy-519x600.png)
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 submit. 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 may, 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 permit 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 towards anybody,” he mentioned, explaining that “Individuals however have the precise to touch upon and even criticize official authorities messaging.”
Nonetheless, lately, 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 precise to interact and debate official navy speaking factors, he mentioned, “Individuals who differ from the social gathering line are more and more being considered 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.”
Based on Dr. Spears, “the controversy has moved farther away from defending the rights of what individuals should say on the social media platforms, notably 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 consumer’s account.”
Within the latter a part of his profession as a PAO, Dr. Spears observed that within the navy public affairs fields of observe, “those that have a constitutional perspective [that protects free speech] are discovering themselves outnumbered, or at the least outgunned when it comes to authority and affect.” And people who take a censorious strategy, he mentioned, “imagine it’s truthful and moral to dam customers and delete the feedback that go towards their narrative.”
Based on 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 Courtroom case O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier confirmed that “the deprivation of a citizen’s first modification rights from a government-controlled social media account isn’t permitted below regulation.”
“Case regulation is clearly on Cmdr. Inexperienced’s facet,” Dr. Spears defined. “Bottomline, the authorized, moral observe must be that you simply don’t block individuals for saying one thing merely since you or your commander doesn’t prefer it. That undermines the Constitutional goal 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 thing that occurs of their group. “Nonetheless,” 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 problem that’s famous by Cmdr. Inexperienced in his Article 1150 criticism was associated to the 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate:
“Underneath Rear Admiral Waters’ watch, the OPNAV N131 Spiritual Lodging Evaluate Crew developed and executed a Customary Working Process (SOP) to problem a template denial to every Spiritual Lodging Request submitted by Navy sailors with out doing the individualized assessment required by regulation and navy regulation.”
Moreover, “The actions taken by Rear Admiral Waters and his staff have been so flagrant that they grew to become the cornerstone proof within the SEALs v. Biden federal lawsuit over spiritual liberty in the USA Navy.”
Dr. Spears famous that “this suits the mannequin we’ve 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 have been demoted, and none of them have been fired, however lots of them have 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 increased ranges of command, you needn’t fear about what the regulation says, however quite fear about what your increased command tells you to do.”
“Individuals should ask themselves, is that this the type 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 by which the mandate was executed is shameful.”
“As soon as it was found that vaccinated service members have 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 mirror and verify 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 negative effects exacerbated, if not triggered, 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 towards the grain of what the establishment desires to do doesn’t bode properly for members of the navy, however these few which are keen to face their floor on precept, similar to Commander Inexperienced, are admirable.”
VADM Lee asserts, “Present management wants to look at what went proper, and what went incorrect right here.” Based on him, “They’ve an obligation of care to return and assessment each course of, each coverage, and each choice made through the COVID-19 roll-out and ask themselves what may have been performed 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 have 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.