Donate to Free Republic.
Posted on 04/06/2012 9:26:41 AM PDT by Mozilla
A US Marine faces possible dismissal after posting critical remarks on Facebook about US President Barack Obama, with a review board recommending a less than honorable discharge.
Sergeant Gary Stein (26) a nine-year veteran, posted comments on Facebook and other websites calling Obama a coward and "the economic and religious enemy," a Marine Corps board was told during an all-day hearing on Thursday.
Stein had urged Obama's defeat in the November election, writing "screw Obama" in one posting, and had founded a website called Armed Forces Tea Party, apparently in support of the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement.
On one site he sold bumper stickers reading "NOBAMA 2012."
The three-member board meeting at Camp Pendleton, a military base in southern California, announced its decision on Thursday. The final decision will be made by a commanding general.
Stein had no comment after the decision, but Mark Brewer, one of his civilian lawyers, said: "We're disappointed but we're going to keep fighting for this Marine."
During the hearing, Marine lawyers argued that Stein be booted over the remarks about Obama, who is the commander and chief of US armed forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.iafrica.com ...
Back in the day, one of my primary duties was to recommend action to the CG in cases of administrative discharge. Usually it was pretty well cut and dried, but this one is new ground.
This is one I could go either way on. Depending on his totality of service, I may recommend to the CG that he be allowed to stay until his EAS in July, but reassign his butt to MWR handing out basketballs or something. I would also make it clear to the young man that one more peep out of him would earn him legal hold for court martial.
The CG’s decision will depend greatly on what the officers who own this guy have to say, how much pressure he is getting from on high, and how feisty the CG is. I’ve worked for a couple that seemed to relish going against the grain, and others who folded like dominoes in a high wind.
(Disclaimer... I don’t have the record book in front of me, and I don’t know what kind of record he had before he lost his mind.)
Any commissioned officer ....
Since when did a Sergeant become a Commissioned Officer?
I don’t think it came down to ranting on his own Facebook page.
I’m pretty sure it was the “Armed Forces Tea Party” page that crossed the line.
When I was serving under Clinton, I had a mild “anti-Clinton” bumper sticker on my car. I expected to be told to scrape it, but nobody said a word. Had they, I would have removed it and that would have been the end. Had I doubled down and added another sticker on my car, then I would have had a problem.
I believe the military is discharging him rather than face the sticky situation that may show 0bama is not qualified for the office he usurps, and therefore has been issuing unlawful orders. In other words, the rear echelon is doing what they always do - taking the easy way out.
That would be a good argument in favor of booting him now... to serve as a warning to others.
I think that’s what this is going to come down to.
Damn I should have been fired 100 times over especially during Carter and Clinton admin. :>)
I hear ya. I served under Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. Many times I had to bite my tongue.
First of all, everyone mouths off about their superiors in the service. They just do it behind their backs.
Secondly, if you are publicly mouthing off about the president in his role as the Commander in Chief, then that should not be allowed, but if you are criticizing his domestic policies and other policies not related to the military then the military should not have any jurisdiction to squelch your free speech rights as long as you are not appearing to represent the military and your opinions are personal.
If this guy was using military equipment for his rants, then he should be punished in the same manner for which any soldier would be punished for using military equipment for personal use. If he was doing this at home on his off time and did not publicly criticize the CIC for his military decisions, then I do not believe the Military should have the authority to punish him.
Just because you are a Marine, it does not mean that you have ceased to be an American Citizen.
“ultra-conservative Tea Party movement” Really? ULTRA Conservative? That describes none of the Tea Parties we know, and we know a lot.
Yeah, ya should have heard me cussing kennedy, Johnson and Nixon carter and Climton got off easy I remember when I was a civilian working for the navy and they sent out a letter to all commands that no one, civilian or military, could badmouth Clinton or face UCMJ if military and being terminated if a civilian.. Had to have been a lot of people doing it for them to send out letters like that.
“Just because you are a Marine, it does not mean that you have ceased to be an American Citizen. “
***********************
That’s what George said way back...
You don’t have ‘rights’ in the military. Everyone knows that who has served.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I keep hearing that nonsense. It is a blatant falsehood. One does not loose their rights. They do not become slaves or property. In many respects your rights are better protected in that there is always someone responsible.
Ask yourself this, how many times have I been given the run around by civilians telling me “that’s not my job/responsibility, go see _____, and you never find that responsible person?
State (without FR hyperbole) how this Marine did any of that by making comments on public websites that included (paraphrased) "I won't follow Obama's orders"?
The problem was that Obama is not a bottom boy, he is the one who does the screwing, not the other way around.
I second everything that Marine said on his site.The only thing is he should have kept his service status unknown,then he would have been free to criticize the SOB.
What kills me is a soldier,sailor,Marine or Airman can not have any political opinions about the SOB but he sure is willing to use them as wallpaper in his campaign appearances.
I second everything that Marine said on his site.The only thing is he should have kept his service status unknown,then he would have been free to criticize the SOB.
What kills me is a soldier,sailor,Marine or Airman can not have any political opinions about the SOB but he sure is willing to use them as wallpaper in his campaign appearances.
To the Soldiers and sailors out there in FReeperville I’m sorry I forgot to capitalize your titles.It was not intentional.
I read this somewhere: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW....
I guess that's just a dead letter, eh?
Not only that, but it’s bad writing. It’s not “Commander and chief” - it’s Commander in Chief, which *we all know.
Ultraconservative Tea Party? Wrong. It’s normal Americanism. Tell my Dem Tea Party member acquaintances (yes, there are a bunch) that they’re ultraconservative.
“The UCMJ is unique to the military”
But does it trump the constitution?
Artical 1, Section 7:
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
“prejudicial to good order and discipline”
***Except when needed for political gain****
repeal of don’t ask don’t tell comes to mind...
If I recall correctly the First Amendment came after Article 1 Section 7 and limits the ability of the Congress to abridge the Freedom of Speech of all of it's Citizens. An amendment to the constitution limiting the authority of congress supersedes any prior authorization in the Original Document.
Therefore while the Congress can make rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval forces, it cannot include in those rules any blanket prohibition of Free Speech and Assembly or Religion or freedom of the press (In this case the freedom to post opinions on line).
Congress must have a stated COMPELLING reason to limit the free speech of any Citizen. A blanket prohibition against political speech is neither necessary or compelled by any purpose for which such a blanket prohibition would be served.
Good order and discipline does not require that soldiers and Marines give up their right to express their opinions on political topics not directly related to their service in the armed forces.
The First Amendment specifically prohibits congress from abridging the freedom of speech as part of its authority to make rules for the Government and Regulation of the armed forces.
Do you think that Article 1 Section 7 is not subject to the Bill of Rights? Is that the attitude I'm hearing here?
And he does not have a commission. Holding enlisted to a rule designed for officers means that the brass are simply covering their own asses. If he is guilty of anything it is not obeying a direct order, for which he should be punished. That said, he has a limited right that he abused, acting more like a rebellious high school student than a marine.
This brings to a question if the nonmilitary citizens Of the USA have any protection at all by the military in case of insurrection by a group of persons which the POTUSA would cover for. Being a bottom of the ladder foot soldier in WWII I, as most all of my fellow G.I.s, never had to think about such a turn of events. We were very much aware of minding our talk. However, in today’s scenario I am very disappointed in what I see going on with much of ‘our’ military toe sucking for rank and pay to keeping Obama as legitimate CiC. I often feel that if push -comes-to-shove I would be forced to go against my military ‘protectors’. I do believe there will be a lot of anguish when the full/complete story about Obama and his enablers, including those in the USA government, is exposed.
Obviously you never studied constitutional law. Any law that limits free speech must be "Narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." The blanket rule against expressing political opinions is neither narrowly tailored nor necessary to serve any compelling state interest.
If Congress needs to limit free speech in any context including the military, then it needs to state what the compelling interest is and to show that the rule it has adopted is as narrow as possible to serve that compelling interest.
You're right. I was never in the Military, but I am a lawyer. So you stick to what you are a professional at (which I suspect is following orders without question) and I will stick to what I am a professional at (which is questioning authority and insisting that Congress follow the restrictions given in the Bill of Rights).
See, and without being snarky (might I mention you can do the same?) allow me to observe that this is one of the indicators that you don't have military. Chain-of-command is everything. You can sometimes need to send people into certain death.
Anything that corrupts or sheds bad light on the chain of command is against the compelling state interest. And it is narrow: Don't publicly criticize superior officers in your chain of command.
The same would have applied if the soldier publicly talked crap about a Second Looey in his C.o.C.MAny law that limits free speech must be "Narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."
He can talk politics ALL HE WANTS. "I am against referendum 20238995499.12883!", "I am a staunch conservative", "Please go vote this election!", "Boy, my city mayor SUCKS!".
Just not about people in the C.o.C.
A sergeant is not a commissioned officer. He is explicitly a non-commissioned officer.
That's not entirely accurate, LB. While on active duty, you can voluteer to work in a political campaign, you can speak, and you can, of course, vote. However, you must do so on your own time, you must do it in civilian clothes, and you must give no indication whatsoever that you are representing the military.
It is always against regulation for a member of the military to speak contemptuously of the Commander in Chief.
Like Marlowe says, though, they'll never stop troops from complaining about the brass. It's a given. Therefore, speaking contemptuously, in my humble opinion, does not include griping about perceived lousy decisions.
*****
“When we assumed the soldier we did not lay aside the citizen,” from then-Gen. George Washington’s June 26, 1775, letter to the Provincial Congress is inscribed inside the apse.
Ref
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/amphitheater.html
Note: The above quote was a favorite of Col David (Perfumed Princes) Hackworth USA (Ret.) (now deceased)
*****
“There ain’t no ticks like poly-ticks. Bloodsuckers all.”
-Davy Crockett (unsourced)
Ref
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett
**********
When I retired in ‘95 one of the handouts was a framed photo of the CiC. I “forgot” to pick it up off the table on my way to the Chief’s Club.
I'm guessing there is a legal definition of "contemptuous" that is used by the military. There would have to be in order to charge someone for violating in such a manner.
I just don't know what it is.
I didn’t say he was commissioned, that was somebody else.
Article 88 would not apply to him. Article 134 would, though.
Those of us who put in 20+ years in the military, especially those of us who had both enlisted and commissioned time, will see this a bit differently than your average FReeper. We’ve been inside, so we have a bit more clarity on the issue.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
At least I didn’t get that! I got his signature on my certificate, though. I think it’s somewhere in the garage...
I’m not comfortable giving up hyperbole. Next thing, you’ll be wanting to deprive me of sarcasm and cynicism, and beyond that I got nothin’.
As for losing 'rights'. Our grateful Gov't has deemed all persons, having limits on rights, that your 'rights' are not 'unlimited' so in a fact, all persons are slaves, even in and out of the military.
HE ENLISTED UNDER G W BUSH.
Idiot in chief O got elected once he was serving.
Terms of contract were changed as the C in C is not an American, etc.
“I despise Obama, but rules are rules”
Rules are rules and Obama has never produced his original birth certificate. Why does the rules apply at the very top !!?
Then you know that technically officers and enlisted have different first amendment rights . Officers have the right to have their heads cut off, or strangled with a silken thread, like gentlemen. ;-)
one of the big problems with attempted discussion and this topic is that the line between politics and.....whatever the word would be to now classify our situation...call it “xxx,” is that we’ve never been in a situation like this b4...at least not since the so-called civil war—which it wasn’t—and we’re abandoned in a “no-man’s-land” where the cavalry ain’t coming and we dunno what to do.
whatever we do, if anything, it will have to be done the old-fashioned way—ourselves.
how many are ready for that?
good question, i think i already know the answer...tell ya what...just skip it...
Semper WTH!
*****
Whereas the enlisted folks get taken back behind the building and thrashed by the sergeant major... :-)
Until it is proved that Obama is not a NBC and he is subsequently removed from office, he is the Commander in Chief.
This is uncharted territory we're in.
Apparently that is what he did. The Marines didn't seem to care.
From the article:
Stein's lawyers countered that since the comments were made off-duty they are protected under constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, saying the Marine Corps's own rules on the matter are vague.
They argued that restricting Marines from participating in political discussions essentially reduced them to second-class citizens.
You have not been in the military have you?
They was wrong. The United States is a constitutional republic not a democracy.
Well stated.
While I believe the letter of the law allows for military personnel to be involved in politics, while not on duty, nor in uniform, the colloquial interpretation of that relationship within the military varies widely.
If an officer abides by his oath of office, he is sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
If in good conscience, an officer perceives a domestic enemy of the Constitution, then he is bound by oath to defend the Constitution of the US. Meanwhile, he also is bound to support the Constitution, and accordingly must be clearly understood to not condone unconstitutional positions.
I’ve also observed many an officer not so committed in virtue to defending and supporting the Constitution, but instead pay their allegiance first to a more familiar ‘band of brothers’.
IMHO, it would be far more virtuous to deny the discharge of the Marine in question, but instead insist that his behavior explicitly supports the Constitution clearly demonstrates the same defense thereof. If his website and comments exceeded his authority, then discipline him accordingly, but don’t provide the appearance to others that unconstitutional behavior will be condoned or tolerated, no matter how senior the alleged enemy.
Like always gunny we will start and figure it out on the way. No mans land is where the enemy finds itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.