Posted on 04/25/2012 11:34:36 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
I think to harsh. Discharge but with Administrative, maybe a general. OTH is really bad. No decent job at all.
I’d still follow Sgt. Stein up a hill. I wouldn’t follow Obi across a golf course.
The article says he got an OTH discharge. Not as bad as a Dead Duck or Big Chicken Dinner, but still not something you want to put on a resume. It’s good to be passionate about your politics, but stupid to ruin your life over it. He knew what the rules were regarding politics and in the military. He chose to disregard those and now he’s paying the consequences.
The posting: “Screw Obama and I will not follow all orders from him.”
Now, as regards following orders the set in question is “all orders,” which must be the set of lawful orders union the set of unlawful orders; there is no obligation to follow unlawful orders, so then how is this a dischargeable offence?
For saying, “screw [SUPERIOR]”? If that is the case then I think there is quite a misnomer in the UCMJ, specifically “uniform” for it cannot be denied that a not-insignificant portion of soldiers/marines will (at some point) say “screw [X]” where X is some superior.
In any case, I find it intriguing how the Pentagon/DoD, deriving its authority from Congress, can limit the exercise of free-speech when that power is itself denied to Congress.
What are the rules he broke?
He had a disclaimer saying that his site was not associated with the USMC.
What rule did he break? Show it to me.
9 years and he was still a Sergeant. That in and of itself was reason enough to RIF that pogue.
I'm sure he was counseled, yet continued.
What does Article 134 say?
“Other-than-honorable” usually means “General” which reverts to “Honorable” after six months of ‘clean time’ out of the service, or at least, that is the way it used to be.
ACtually I read an article when this story first came out which pointed out that he had twice been told what he was doing was OK because he had a disclaimer on his site saying that it was not associated with the USMC.
Saying that you will not obey unlawful orders is the height of discipline and good order - and that was what was previously listed as being what he said that got him in trouble. (To be truthful, this particular article is so poorly-written, I’m not sure whether what they put in quotes is directly from this guy or not. The whole article is clear as mud).
Refusing to confront an illegal foreign enemy combatant in the White HOuse would bring MUCH discredit upon the armed forces, so those refusing to address this are the ones in violation of Article 134.
And yes, the point at which he got into trouble was when he mentioned Obama’s ineligibility. Maybe he should be glad he got off with his life. The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party didn’t...
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Add this to the growing list of examples showing that Military Leadership is more loyal to Dear Leader than to the Constitution.
Pentagon Policy? Sounds political to me; what law did he violate?
What of the UCMJ recently revised by progressives to embrace and promote homosexual sex?
The best thing this Marine can do now, is run for Congress now.
That said, this Marine is an idiot for doing what he did. Only in a world of no discipline would one get away with it. I don't know if he was offered a chance to stop what he was doing, as his OIC, I would have recommended it. This kind of discourse is something for over beers at the Club, not for social media.
read an article when this story first came out which pointed out that he had twice been told what he was doing was OK because he had a disclaimer on his site saying that it was not associated with the USMC
No doubt from 'sea lawyers'.
Saying that you will not obey unlawful orders is the height of discipline and good order
That isn't a surprise, attaching that statement when commenting about your CIC is what is problematic. Like it or not, there hasn't been a finding by competent authority thet the current douche in the White House is ineligible. It isn't within the purview of military members to make one. Thankfully, we don't have military coups daily like some African/Central American countries. A Marines' job is to be ready to fight and fight when ordered. Political commentary is a job for retired Marines.
Refusing to confront an illegal foreign enemy combatant in the White HOuse would bring MUCH discredit upon the armed forces, so those refusing to address this are the ones in violation of Article 134.
Hyperbole.
If you're correct (very possible but by no means certain,IMO) then a less than honorable discharge may well be appropriate.If not,then counseling should have been the first step by the chain of command.
I don’t know who found out about his postings, or how his command was made aware of them. I have no doubt, however, that when the command was made aware, that he was counseled. Relying on the advice regarding the disclaimer no doubt contributed to his continuing. At that point he was (and should have been) hosed. I think the OTH had more to do with his response to the counseling than his postings on FB. Stupid is hard to fix, obdurate stupidity even harder.
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.