U.S. Marine faces boot for anti-Obama Facebook posts

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
This is the page in question.



www.facebook.com...
edit on 22-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon
The Marines, and the rest of the armed forces, swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the president. The real question is why aren't they marching on D.C. instead of the middle east.


wow.... you REALLY should investigate what the entire oath says.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon
The Marines, and the rest of the armed forces, swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the president. The real question is why aren't they marching on D.C. instead of the middle east.


America need a military junta! Just kidding.

Don't be so emotional, when your are blinded by hate, you are controllable.
edit on 22-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC

Originally posted by TreadUpon
The Marines, and the rest of the armed forces, swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the president. The real question is why aren't they marching on D.C. instead of the middle east.


wow.... you REALLY should investigate what the entire oath says.


Its says take over the government by force when ever your partisan opinions
are expressed in full!



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
This is the page in question.



www.facebook.com...
edit on 22-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)


Is this the same Tea Party that wants to legislate sex and morality with big government policies

or the other one that wants to legislate sex and morality with big government policies?



I get confused LOL
edit on 22-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


That is not the correct page. That is the other one as it says the other page is owned by "Gary Stein".

The correct link is here:

www.facebook.com...

And here is the information that Mr. Stein has listed in the About page.




About
We do not represent, and are in no way affiliated with the military, or United States Armed Forces. If you are trying to reach Gary Stein please email ArmedForcesTP@gmail.com or call 760-936-3484 and leave a message. Thank you.

Mission
To offer a forum that will allow the voices of the US Armed Forces to stand with the Tea Party movement, and be heard.

Company Overview
Our Armed Forces place their life on the line for political agendas every day, is it common sense to think that they should have no opinion about what they are potentially sacrificing their lives for? We say no! Let them be heard.

We are a simple fan page that is set up to allow active, inactive, or retired members of the United States Armed Forces to stand with the Tea Party movement.

We do not represent, and are in no way affiliated with the military, or United States Armed Forces.

Description

What We are Not

We are Not a militia.
We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national.
We are Not advocating or promoting violence towards any organization, group or person.
We are Not advocating or promoting the removal of any person from his or her elected office.
We are Not advocating or promoting that anyone in the Judicial Branch be removed or replaced.
We are Not advocating or promoting any particular form of government other than the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution defined and instituted.
We are Not advocating or promoting the rewriting of the Constitution nor are we asking for an Amendment thereto.
We are Not advocating or promoting any act or acts of aggression against any organization or person for any reason including, but not limited to; race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation




If that has been the About since the beginning, I am pretty sure it is safe to assume the the Sgt. was not in any way using his rank or representing the military in anyway. In fact, I am pretty sure it is stated quite plainly the intentions.

As for the limitation of free speech, I don't care what contract you sign anywhere on this green Earth, so long as you happen to be an American citizen, those Constitutional rights are unbreakable in my book - inalienable some might say.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is an article in the UCMJ that deals specifically with Contemptuous words - UCMJ Article 88 as well as UCMJ - Article 89. Also in UCMJ - Article 91


Xcath - I enjoy your posts about law enforcement but in this military mater you may be a little off...

In this case the Marine could not be punished under:

Article 88 - applies to Commissioned Officers only not NCOs or lower Enlisted.

To use Article 89 the victim must be a superior Commissioned Officer which the POTUS is not.

He might be able to be charged with Article 91 if (as you said below) he was talked to about this issue before – likely by some NCO Senior to him in the Chain of Command. In the case of Article 91 the victim must be a Warrant or Noncommissioned Officer senior to the accused.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

I am also curious about the background that was laid out in the article. It states the Marine was spoken to about his activities. The part im curious about addresses the use of government computers. I got the impression that the Marine may have made some posts while using government property. I am thinking thats the base on how this will play out. If he used the computer at work, then he would be making public political comments while in uniform as well as engaging in political activities while on the job.


Likely he could be charged with a violation of Article 92 which is (failure to obey a lawful order). The orders he violated are those in the regulations and directives related to the political activities of service personnel and those likely given when his superiors confronted him about his activities and gave him a chance to chill.

Additionally while accessing FB on a government computer may not in itself be a violation of a policy or order (again it may very well be local policy ass the commander decides) the frequency of use could be an issue as individuals may send private emails and surf the net in their down time they can’t do it excessively. Again here he’s going to be charged with not following the policy or “orders” – Article 92.

He might be charged with violating Article 134 also which is the catch all article.

Article 134—General article


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..



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


That is not the correct page. That is the other one as it says the other page is owned by "Gary Stein".

The correct link is here:

www.facebook.com...



Indeed i stand corrected THIS IS THE CORRECT PAGE. apologize for the wrong posting.
edit on 22-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Its says take over the government by force when ever your partisan opinions
are expressed in full!


Here it is:

""I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The tricky part here is, "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." thereby disallowing illegal orders of the command structure from Barry on down. Illegal orders to include unconstitutional orders, say for example: SOPA, NDAA, ect...and orders by unconstitutional authority...you know, like if anybody in the command structure had achieved their authority from fraud, for example.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack

If that has been the About since the beginning, I am pretty sure it is safe to assume the Sgt. was not in any way using his rank or representing the military in anyway. In fact, I am pretty sure it is stated quite plainly the intentions.


All the disclaimers in the world don't take away from the fact that he is in violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)

Specifically this one SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces which is a DOD directive. Likely the Marine Corps Commander signed one stating the exact same thing - not that it would be required to still bind the activities of the SGT.


4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.

4.1.2.4. Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.



Originally posted by gwydionblack
As for the limitation of free speech, I don't care what contract you sign anywhere on this green Earth, so long as you happen to be an American citizen, those Constitutional rights are unbreakable in my book - inalienable some might say.


He is free to say whatever he wants - he just can't start or be the sponsor of a partisan political group and publish a bunch of literature even if he doesn't use his rank at the bottom. Sorry those are the rules.

It gives the appearance of a disconnect between the military and civilian leadership and that scares people.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Blatant violation of the Hatch Act.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Absolutely nothing to do with the Hatch Act.

These are the only people who fall under those restrictions.
www.osc.gov...

As was already pointed out, he was in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ
edit on 3-22-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Its says take over the government by force when ever your partisan opinions
are expressed in full!


Here it is:

""I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The tricky part here is, "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." thereby disallowing illegal orders of the command structure from Barry on down. Illegal orders to include unconstitutional orders, say for example: SOPA, NDAA, ect...and orders by unconstitutional authority...you know, like if anybody in the command structure had achieved their authority from fraud, for example.




But earlier you said

"The real question is why aren't they marching on D.C. instead of the middle east."

So what is the specific reason they should go to DC and break apart the Constitutional United States
with military occupation?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





I got the impression that the Marine may have made some posts while using government property. I am thinking thats the base on how this will play out. If he used the computer at work, then he would be making public political comments while in uniform as well as engaging in political activities while on the job.


Then that so called government property is payed for by the taxpayers of this country, so essentially it's not government owned it's owned by the taxpayers. So it should be up to the taxpayers if any charges need to be filed. I know pipe dream, our voice is in D.C. etc etc... But in all reality this crap just keeps getting more and more deeper the longer we go.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon
The Marines, and the rest of the armed forces, swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the president. The real question is why aren't they marching on D.C. instead of the middle east.




I have been screaming this for a long time now. Come home boy's and girls, tell your officers to go stick it where the sun don't shine. Whats that Doors song 5 to 1, all service personnel need to understand that there are more lower ranked units than higher ups and we the people would support you 100% I am sure of that. We need to clean house back at home and put OUR country back in order.

I suppose it's clear to see how people are so easily brainwashed by other people, it's the only thing I can think of as to why they would let their higher ups screw them and the rest of the country over continuously without putting their hand up and saying stop. And here I was raised to think that our soldiers were here to help, defend, the regular citizens. Chalk that one up to another fable............ Maybe it's time to start filling the paperwork out to slap the charges on the military personnel both high and low as they have failed to protect the constitution?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Unless the authors and executers of that plan are sociopathic or believe the military are expendable,Which in fact is most probably the case with this POTUS.No salutes,he HUGS a medal of honor winner,He jumps into more conflicts without any regard for the American people.He doesn't tell us where, why or let the American people know via speech how he feels about it aside from an off side comment .His body language betrays his lack of empathy.It would appear that we simply will have to accept what choices he makes for us or we are enemies of the system,not him.So much so he is building an infrastructure to attack America.I would have said "his own country" but I am in doubt that any socialist with such anti America poison must be from another nation.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hapablab
Yep the OP and SD got it right, No matter what you think you cannot talk bad about your commander and Chief, seems to me this marine is not trying to prove a point, he's just trying to cause trouble, follow the rules Marine.


You don't know us Marines ... we are trouble makers and have a backbone to stand up and tell you.

because you follow orders doesn't mean you have qualified immunity ... this is established military law!

To or not to fobey orders




The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).


as far as the free speech

writ.news.findlaw.com...




Why O'Dell's Comments Are Not Punishable Under the UCMJ

But a closer look shows that O'Dell's comments fall outside Article 88, which states:

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Fortunately for O'Dell, he's a private - not a "commissioned officer." He can be thankful for his lack of stripes, because there is no way Article 88 can be applied to him without them.

It turns out that O'Dell was wise in his choice of targets as well. For if he had "behaved with disrespect" toward a superior commissioned or non-commissioned officer - from Gen. Tommy Franks down to his own platoon sergeant,. he could have been subject to court martial under Articles 89 and 91 of the UCMJ. These articles apply to all soldiers, including enlisted men and women. But the civilian officials who are specifically protected from criticism in Article 88, including the Secretary of Defense, are not mentioned in Articles 89 and 91.



So, becasue he is an "enlisted" man he has different rights according toe UCMJ and therefore his activicties could be quite legal!



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

So, becasue he is an "enlisted" man he has different rights according toe UCMJ and therefore his activicties could be quite legal!


Negative ghostrider - the patern is full....

He is in violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation)

Specifically this one SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces which is a DOD directive.


4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions noted in subparagraph 4.1.1.6.

4.1.2.4. Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.


He is free to say whatever he wants - he just can't start or be the sponsor of a partisan political group and publish a bunch of literature even if he doesn't use his rank at the bottom. Sorry those are the rules.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 

protect constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTYDONKEY
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 

protect constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.


And ignore the other guys who do the same things, on steroids..





top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join