Soldier fired for Obama critique

iafrica ^ | 4-6-12 | staff

[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.

[Americanexpat]

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.

[gunnyg]

“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...

[Little Bill]

When you sign on the line you leave your political opinions at home. Remember the Congress can make the rules for the Good Order and Discipline of the Military and you loose certain Constitutional rights when you sign. One of those is political discourse.

[Mike Darancette]

I hope these guys are punished:

[W. W. SMITH]

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?

[Future Snake Eater]

As a Marine, does he not have the obligation to protect the Constitution, even perhaps against attacks on it by the C-i-C?

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"?

[W. W. SMITH]

The problem was that Obama is not a bottom boy, he is the one who does the screwing, not the other way around.

[puppypusher]

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.

[puppypusher]

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.

[P-Marlowe]

Remember the Congress can make the rules for the Good Order and Discipline of the Military and you loose certain Constitutional rights when you sign. One of those is political discourse.

I read this somewhere: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW....

I guess that's just a dead letter, eh?

[bootless]

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.

[OL Hickory]

“The UCMJ is unique to the military”

But does it trump the constitution?

[Little Bill]

Artical 1, Section 7:

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

[OL Hickory]

“prejudicial to good order and discipline”

***Except when needed for political gain****
repeal of don’t ask don’t tell comes to mind...

[P-Marlowe]

Artical 1, Section 7: 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

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?

[RobbyS]

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.

[Little Bill]

Obviously you have never served in the Armed Forces. The First Amendment did not exclude Congress from Regulating the Military from limiting Political speech as being imitable to good discipline.

[noinfringers2]

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.

[P-Marlowe]

Obviously you have never served in the Armed Forces. The First Amendment did not exclude Congress from Regulating the Military from limiting Political speech as being imitable to good discipline.

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).

[Lazamataz]

Any law that limits free speech must be "Narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."

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.