Posted on 04/25/2012 11:34:36 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
SAN DIEGO (AP) - The Marine Corps said Wednesday it has decided to discharge a sergeant for criticizing President Barack Obama on Facebook.
The Corps said Sgt. Gary Stein will be given an other-than-honorable discharge for violating Pentagon policy limiting speech of service members.
(Excerpt) Read more at wvva.com ...
” my premise is that if politics is more important to an individual than their love and fidelity to this country they should not serve.”
Simple unproven assumptions and opinion.
“Its a simple concept that simple grunts like me, my father and my grandfather and millions of others before were able to understand and nothing has changed to make the concept suddenly incomprehensible.”
Well, this simple grunt would not have followed unlawful orders by Ronald Reagan, a man I respected deeply.
You’re right about 134. A case can be made for 89, if “chain of command” can be interchanged for “commissioned officer”, since the POTUS is chain of command.
But, there’s always the possibility it was disobedience to a direct order, given that he was counseled on what he could and couldn’t do.
I agree about E-5 after 9 years. Something else is going on here that we’re not seeing.
I doubt it, it looks like the content of the postings violated the policy; 'Screw 0bama' likely would. If the content had been verbal instead of written, no problem. Ignoring the counseling repeatedly is what got him an OTH.
>The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party didn’t...
Wait? What’s this, butter?
Anybody who has served in the military knows that Article 34 and possibly others can pretty much get you thrown out for nearly anything. I was counseled for a potential article for getting a sunburn prior to an obligatory Jump Tower training exercise. So, like a good little paratrooper, I took extra strength Tylenol and yelled a little louder.
I can’t really relate as I didn’t have time to buck anything, let alone be political, when I was in.
But I just can’t take “Screw Obama” as anything worthy of kicking somebody out. I find it laughable and capricious.
>Add this to the growing list of examples showing that Military Leadership is more loyal to Dear Leader than to the Constitution.
That was a contributing factor when I let my enlistment expire. As we were preping for a parade, sometime around the 2008 election, I made a comment about how if Obama was ineligible then the Army’s duty was to oust him (because it’s to the Constitution, not to a person or branch of the government, or even the government as a whole) and was told [basically] “Shut up specialist.” by some sergeant.
Meanwhile, Nidal Malik Hasan, a man who was willing to kill his fellow soldiers over his beliefs, is still receiving pay and benefits from the military.
I’m getting more and more reasons to be thankful I was turned down for military service. No way I could serve under dear leader.
Say it was in 2003, and the Marine had said “Screw Bush”. Or if it was the Civil war and he had said “Screw Lincoln”.
I would probably just respond, “F you buddy”
No. Not something you boot somebody for. No.
>But I just can’t take “Screw Obama” as anything worthy of kicking somebody out. I find it laughable and capricious.
It underscores a way of thinking that, sadly, is VERY entrenched into people’s minds. (Laughable and capricious is a GREAT descriptor.)
It has to do, ultimately, with authority; allow me to illustrate with “the law.”
New Mexico has the following in its Constitution:
Art II, Sec 6, No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
There are, however, big signs saying “No Firearms, violators will be prosecuted” on the state, county & municipal courthouses. There is no actual statute regarding this, and EVEN IF THERE WAS it would be in violation of Art II, Sec 6. (County and municipal courthouses doubly because of the second sentence.)
Now, what would happen if I were to open carry into the municipal courthouse? I would be arrested and charged.
But under what authority? The authority of “DO AS I SAY! I HAVE A GUN!” obviously, as the state’s legislature, nor the county, nor the city has the legitimate authority to make (or enforce) such a policy.
I bring this up because it’s not [just] about the law; it’s about power. It’s about control. It’s about the appearance of authority without the legitimacy.
*THAT* is why the laws are so complex, convoluted, and given to arbitrary enforcement.
“Meanwhile, Nidal Malik Hasan, a man who was willing to kill his fellow soldiers over his beliefs, is still receiving pay and benefits from the military.”
Apt perspective.
Hell, they won’t even refer to his as a terrorist.
LOL
Lots of things are. Defining what is and isn't detrimental to 'good order and discipline' will never be a sergeant's job. Ignoring 'counseling' for an apparently capricious reason is the reason this guy got bounced. He got what he wanted, and will likely get the OTH upgraded to a general but for a good while he'll be screwed. The Corps isn't a debating society.
Capricious use of UCMJ has nothing to do with the USMC being a debating society.
Disobeying lawful orders and creating disorder in the military are serious issues.
Expressing displeasure with the President through a silly rant, really isn’t a serious matter.
Again, who determines what defines creating disorder. The individual? And when counselled?
In an earlier article I read that some of his posts were made from a government computer. He was told to stop and continued. That in itself is disobeying a lawful order.
Not very smart.
“Again, who determines what defines creating disorder. The individual? And when counselled? “
Capricious boot lickers looking to climb the JAG and Officer Ladder by playing the Politically Correct New Gay Military and Marine Corps game??
...same people who decided NOT to prosecute and boot blatant homosexuals flouting their gayness and causing military disorder??
There you go, makes the actions even dumber.
You guys have your opinions and I have mine.
My frustration is more with what was a great military that could keep enemies at bay and protect security interests, and what it appears to be turning in to.
Seriously, this is bread and circus stuff.
Meanwhile, we have a Pentagon of gumshoes REMF cheese-eating ass kissers... that are willing to sit by and acquiesce to Obama’s pansy ass Rules of Engagement, that is getting our guys killed and maimed, while we leave a smallish core behind in both Iraq and Afghanistan...that can hardly deter attacks let alone mount serious offensive operations.
A Pentagon and Officer Corps that won’t call Hassan a terrorist, but sell out their fellow military members and attribute Islamist Terrorism to “workplace stress and random violence”.
We are being distracted with this circus while our military is being sacrificed with a BullShit Queensbury ruse.
My last post on this deflection. Respectfully, out.
The dishonorable thing is to lie.
So far nobody has ever told me any way that the officer’s oath makes one iota of difference. It’s just a lie, and everybody in the military knows it.
I don’t like that. I don’t like my nephews having to LIE in order to be in what is supposedly an honorable position.
If they’re going to tell our guys to STFU when an enemy is threatening the Constitution, then they shouldn’t make them take the stinkin’ oath. Because that’s what it is, if it can never actually be carried out. It’s just a way to make it seem like it’s an honorable position, when all it can ever be is “yes-man”.
The people in the military who should have checked Obama out and found that his records are not in order and he is not qualified to be CINC (and brought that fact to Congress so they could impeach and/or the courts so they could declare Joe Biden the acting CINC) AS FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OATHS.... are the people that Lt Col Terry Lakin appealed to for answers in the proper manner, but they are too afraid of losing their lifetime rank if they make waves. They were yes-men who betrayed everybody below them in the chain of command who counted on them to have a way to keep their oaths.
THEY are the people who have brought dishonor on the US military and on themselves.
If anybody was as concerned about the honor of the men who have positions of high responsibility as they are about the honor of the peons, maybe this country would be in a heckuva better situation right now.
Maybe this guy should have kept his mouth shut. It’s not like it’s a free country or anything, or like the guidelines that were put out regarding political speech for military personnel actually mean anything, or the oaths that have been taken mean anything.
I guess I’m a little more ready to forgive somebody who mistakenly believes that this is America than I am for the people ensuring that it’s not.
This issue is too close to home for me. I’m going to leave the discussion before I say something I regret. Good-bye.
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.