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?
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.
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.