Marine says he faces discharge over Obama comments

CNN ^ | 22 March 2012 | Michael Pearson

[OldNavyVet]

A politically active Marine who has questioned President Barack Obama's authority said Thursday that he is facing administrative discharge proceedings over his comments.

Sgt. Gary Stein, who founded the Armed Forces Tea Party, said his commanding officer at Camp Pendleton near San Diego has accused him of violating a catch-all military justice provision against conduct endangering "good order and discipline."

[butterdezillion]

“Came close to violating” means “did not violate”.

What changed between then and now?

[ExTxMarine]

After reading the DOD Directive, I must say that there are MANY contradictory provisions throughout the entire document.

It states many places that you are NOT allowed to participate with “partisan political parties.” However, you are allowed to have political bumper stickers and make political statements. Many bumper stickers are against the sitting President. Heck, I had a bumper sticker that stated “Impeach President Clinton, and her husband!” and I had many complaints, but I was never told that I couldn’t have it!

More importantly, “close to violating” and “violating” are too EXTREMELY different positions in which to bring charges and ruin a mans military career!

[smoothsailing]

What changed between then and now?

Beats me, I guess he pissed somebody off.

[jagusafr]

Article 88, UCMJ deals with “Contempt Toward Officials” and specifically includes the President, but one of the elements is that the accused is a commissioned officer, which this marine isn’t.

“Stupid on Station” comes to mind.

Colonel, USAFR

[jagusafr]

Art 88, UCMJ prohibits contempt of officials, including the Prez, but applies only to commissioned officers.

[Wuli]

The professional thing to do in such circumstances is to resign, if that’s possible at that point in your service, or honestly admit you’ll have to accept the consequences; and live with them. History will prove this individual as either brave or misguided and over-zealous for his beliefs.

[ExTxMarine]

I know, and understand the difference - “technically” Commissioned Officers are specifically “commissioned” with the approval of the President. So, having contempt or such with the CIC could be detrimental to the completion of ones duties.

It is like when someone is promoted to a Staff-NCO position, they are given this position by Congress - if I remember the wording on the certificates.

[butterdezillion]

I suspect it has something to do with DOD claims to Congress that they don’t even have to consult with Congress before invading Syria.

And that it has to do with Sheriff Joe Arpaio initiating a criminal investigation after his posse found probable cause for forgery and fraud on Obama’s birth certificate and draft registration.

If all Obama has on file at the Selective Service Administration is a forged draft registration, then Obama cannot hold federal office, period. He would not be STATUTORILY QUALIFIED. And would not have been statutorily qualified since Jan 20, 2009 - which is pertinent because the 20th Amendment says that if the President-elect has “failed to qualify” by noon on Jan 20th then the VP elect must “act as President until a President shall have qualified”. IOW, he’s never been qualified EVEN STATUTORILY, not even considering the Second Article requirement for age, residency, and natural born citizenship - which are all in question since what Obama presented to the public is forged and we have no idea which item(s) may have been altered. Three items potentially impact Constitutional eligibility: age, birth place, and parents.

Serious stuff. We’re not talking about amateur, anonymous internet posters. We’re talking about a law enforcement body and a lawful criminal investigation.

And we’re talking about a military leadership which is claiming that Congress is IRRELEVANT to the matters the Constitution (Article 1, section 8) puts under the authority of Congress. Serious, serious stuff. This is messing with all the checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law that makes America what we’ve always been. This is RADICAL TRANSFORMATION through extra-legal (unlawful) means. This is everything the officers’ oath is about.

[elcid1970]

Enlisted personnel who diss the POTUS get nailed under the catchall Article 134 UCMJ.

For officers, yes, it’s Article 88 UCMJ “contempt toward [elected] officials”, and it got used during the Clinton years. I reentered active service in 1994 as a warrant officer and almost as soon as I joined my new unit the commander warned me, “Chief, I know you’re a Vietnam vet but be careful what you say about Pres. Clinton; someone may be listening and you could be court-martialed under Article 88.”

I looked up the history of Art. 88. It dates back to 1867 and was aimed at Union Army general officers seeking to run for the office of President by denigrating the incumbent (and Andrew Johnson was a rich target).

In this case, refusing to obey the lawful orders of the CIC is making a bad bet. To merely badmouth Clinton as a draft dodger usually wasn’t punished unless it was a general officer doing the badmouthing.

[butterdezillion]

How does resigning fulfill the oath to defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic?

Then again, what does the military allow its officers to do, in order to keep that oath that they require these officers to make to defend against DOMESTIC ENEMIES? If they require the oath but make illegal any attempts to keep the oath, isn’t that actually entrapment?

Are there protections for whistle-blowers - even somebody whistle-blowing against an unlawful Commander-in-Chief? If so, then why didn’t the military protect Lt Col Lakin and follow up on the questions he raised about potential wrong-doing and/or crimes by either Obama himself or (if the CINC is exempt from military investigation because he’s civilian) the SecDef?

Lakin’s second lawyer did what he had to do to try to get Lakin off easier (after ret Maj Gen Vallely and others advised Lakin to drop the eligibility issue because the military and courts are too corrupted to give a right ruling), but said we should all be asking why the military people that Lakin appealed to for follow-up didn’t follow up. The buck has to stop somewhere. Who knew what, and when? That’s what we need to know, and people like Stein are (whether intentionally or unintentionally) raising a question that, if left unanswered by the military chain of command since becoming aware of the questions, makes them vulnerable to charges of treason if it turns out that Obama DID commit fraud.

At this point, who in the military leadership could genuinely claim that they are not aware that a law enforcement body has found probable cause for forgery and fraud for both Obama’s birth certificate and his draft registration? The latter of which, if true, would disqualify Obama from being POTUS on STATUTORY grounds, without any legal interpretation necessary.

[butterdezillion]

HE never said he would refuse to obey lawful orders. He said he would refuse to obey UNLAWFUL orders.

Show me where disobeying unlawful orders is forbidden in the military’s codes or rules. I’ve been told that it is a LEGAL OBLIGATION.

And show me where insisting on following the Constitution is “contempt”.

[butterdezillion]

We’ve got lots of active military right here on Free Republic. When they speak against Obama and/or his policies are they violating either Article 88 or Article 134?

That would be an awfully important thing for some of our people to know.

[jagusafr]

“Contemptuous words” is what the Article prohibits. I’ve done a bunch of courts martial as both prosecutor and defense counsel and never had one of these. Disagreeing with a policy is not contempt. Disagreeing with an action of the CinC is not contempt. Calling the CinC an arrogant pr*ck probably is, even if it’s true.

Colonel, USAFR

[smoothsailing]

The draft card thing really shakes my chain. I was drafted in 1966. If Obama phonied up his draft card or someone did it for him and he actually never even registered, then he’s not fit to walk among us, much less be CIC.

[DUMBGRUNT]

“He is also accused of violating a Department of Defense policy limiting the political activities of service members.”

Gen Alexander Haig

Haig served as White House Chief of Staff, while still retaining his Army commission, during the height of theWatergate affair from May 1973 until September 1974,

Alexander Haig retired as a four-star general from the Army in 1979

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haig

[Wuli]

Resigning says because of ".............................." I can no longer carry out my oath of office under the present ".................".

Resignation with cause IS the professional's statement against their superior(s).

Afterward, as an ex-military, they can then do all the gathering of opposition to "................" they cannot officially, publicly do in uniform.

"Are there protections for whistle-blowers - even somebody whistle-blowing against an unlawful Commander-in-Chief?"

First, the claims have to be made through the chain of commmand - this guy's were made publicly, via FB and, instead of accepting whatever evidence there is behind the claims his commanders saw his Facebook activity as falling under the prohibited activities of "publishing partisan political articles or serving in an official capacity with a partisan political club". But otherwise, yes, when done "inside" through the Chain of Command, including the use of the offices of the Inspectors General, there are "wistleblower" processes. However, meanwhile, and unless proven otherwise, a legal order is still a legal order.

In any case, the unit/command officer has to (a) accept some degree of credibility to the claim and "endorse" the claim forwarding it to the next highest command, barring that, (b) agree that an appeal to the next highest command is permitted under the regulations, and forward it withour an emdorsement or with a request the appeal be denied.

In cases involving money, as with military hardware purchases and testing, mere corruption can stymie a wistleblower.

In this case it is insufficient that the claimant believes the claims to be true or that given the nature of the claims that he believes he is also "defending the Constitution" as required by his oath. It would not even be enough that his commanders accept his sincerity, they must also believe the same reasons, as he does, for why he is making the claim, and they must think his nethod of making his claim is within the methods permitted by the regs (which they think he violated in this case).

"If so, then why didn’t the military protect Lt Col Lakin and follow up on the questions he raised about potential wrong-doing and/or crimes by either Obama himself or (if the CINC is exempt from military investigation because he’s civilian) the SecDef?"

I can only guess that either (a) an insufficient line in the chain of command believed Lakin's claims had sufficient evidence behind them, or (b) certain commanders, for whatever reason(s) didn't want to "rock the boat" or possibly some combination of the two.

[hedgetrimmer]

The man has done nothing wrong, except for openly stating his obligations as a citizen, and supporting, in public, the oath he took on entering the military.

It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as “members”) (including members on active duty, members of the Reserve Components not on active duty, members of the National Guard even when in a non-Federal status, and retired members) to carry out the obligations of citizenship.

--DOD Directive 1344.10

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.2. Promote and encourage others to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute use of their official authority or influence to interfere with the outcome of any election.

4.1.1.3. Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph 4.1.2.4. (See DoD Instruction 1334.1 (Reference (c).)

4.1.1.4. Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with the performance of military duties, is performed when not in uniform, and the Secretary concerned has given prior approval. The Secretary concerned may NOT delegate the authority to grant or deny such permission.

4.1.1.5. Sign a petition for a specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate’s name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate. If the letter identifies the member as on active duty (or if the member is otherwise reasonably identifiable as a member of the Armed Forces), the letter should clearly state that the views expressed are those of the individual only and not those of the Department of Defense (or Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard).

4.1.1.7. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations under section 441a of title 2, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (d)); section 607 of title 18, U.S.C. (Reference (e)); and other applicable law.

4.1.1.8. Display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.

4.1.1.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn.

4.1.1.10. Participate fully in the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

[hedgetrimmer]

Wow.

Restating in public, the oath he took to the American people when he joined the military is becoming an activist?

I guess that’s why you see so little support for Constitutional government these days, no one wants to be called an activist.

[butterdezillion]

I bet if the military court-martialed all the guys who have called Obama an arrogant pr*ck we wouldn’t have anybody left.

Sure makes it seem like what this guy is saying is true - that they are trying to make an example out of him.

It’s not enough that Obama is counseling our wounded warriors to just die and not burden their families with the hassles of recovery.

Not enough that he’s bleeding out our blood, money, and ammunition by sending our twice-wounded warriors to a theater he’s already said we’re not trying to win - where the ROE allow them to be nothing but sitting targets.

Not enough that he’s doing nothing to make sure that our deployed soldiers’ votes are counted.

Not enough that he’s bowing to our enemies or that he told the Egyptian ambassador that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda (which seems to be the destruction of the US and Israel, and the institution of worldwide sharia).

Not enough that he is the puppet of George Soros who has said he fears that America will win “the war on terror” - and if what Bettina (can’t remember her last name) has said on radio is correct, Soros said he intended to destroy the US, asked Hillary and Obama both whether they were willing, and Obama said yes.

Not enough that he let a decorated military surgeon (who went through the chain of command to try to get answers to ease his conscience on whether he could lawfully go into combat) sit in jail for 6 months and lose his savings and livelihood, rather than Obama simply showing somebody a legitimate birth certificate with nothing “embarrassing” on it at all - even though he was willing to do that (albeit with a forged BC) to satisfy the idle curiosity of Donald Trump.

Not enough that he himself has apparently never signed up for the draft.

Not enough that his SecDef made our own soldiers disarm in a combat zone before he would meet with them.

Not enough that he’s reducing the military’s size at the same time as saying that women have to serve in combat because we don’t have enough soldiers.

Not enough that WAlter Reed tried to keep family members from being able to bring Bibles or religious reading materials for their wounded loved ones.

Not enough that he’s making military members pay more for healthcare at the same time that he argues that every woman has a RIGHT to free abortions and contraceptives on the dime of even people who believe that to be wrong or murder.

None of that is enough. He also has to make sure that the good little boys and girls that he has screwed with every action he’s ever made also smile and call him “Sir” on their own private time, while he and George Soros carry out their plans to destroy the country these troops have pledged EVERYTHING to defend.

These men can’t say it so I’ll say it: Obama is a foreign enemy combatant in the White House and he is not worthy to lick the latrines clean behind these guys.

[butterdezillion]

Obama is not fit to lick the latrines clean behind you, Stein, or anybody who has served honorably.

My dad was also drafted. Front lines in Korea. Married his sweetheart right before he had to leave. She spent a week thinking he was dead because a report on the radio gave the wrong unit number. They both went through hell and back just because the country called his number and he was faithful enough to go.

My dad has little of his physical strength left, but he’s got more integrity in one eyelash than Obama has in his body and his wife’s body put together.