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 ...
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.