It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
So what's the charge (did I miss it?) dis-honorable discharge or prison?
Because, wow, if a movement began within the military and somehow more than 50% decided to start and join facebook pages like this.....
That would be interesting, kind of like going on strike by default.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
What if a soldier posts a comment saying "Obama is the greatest and doing a great job", will he/she still be punished for voicing a political comment, or will it be ignored because its a 'positive' comment ?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


True.

Some rights are given up or suspended to serve.

Everyone knows the rules. In the case of present day circumstances, hard to keep quiet.

Or, maybe he wanted out...

K
edit on 22-3-2012 by kawika because: add text



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


He is not allowed to voice his political opinion while in uniform, or if away from his Military duties, he can not identify himself as a member of the Military while voicing it. There is some gray area though, in that he can voice his political opinions as long as he does not speak against anyone in his chain of command, I.E the President and SECDEF. In other words, off duty he can be openly supportive of Ron Paul, but can't specifically say anything negative about Obama.


As I understand it, the only thing "negative" this guy said was "I refuse to arrest or detain US civilians, even if ordered to by the President of The United States".



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hapablab
 


Probably there was something wrong with the way you were wearing the uniform, or they thought you should be at work. Almost certainly they were serious. Good that you said nothing.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


It is a real shame when the people supposedly protecting our freedom from the "evil terrorists" aren't allowed to exercise those same freedoms they are supposedly protecting for themselves.

I guess the US doesn't want soldiers who actually think and are smart enough to figure out that the real threats to our freedom all come from Capitol Hill.
BINGO
edit on 22-3-2012 by leperlord because: blank post



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
There are some activities that the US military are not allowed to do. These activities are very clearly outlined and stated, and posting online, while on active duty, on any political point is one of them.


Really? Do you have a link to a part of the UCMJ that says that? Google doesn't seem to find it.

It has been a short while since I was in but I don't remember being barred from conducting political speech. I remember there were rules that you cannot actively campaign in uniform or use your association with the military to infer that the military somehow endorses your actions. But they never said you can't say what you want, off duty. If he is on duty and is facebooking, or providing pics of him in his Marine uniform while saying political things in a way that may lead people to believe that the military endorses his position, then he is in trouble.

To clarify, I do not mean while on "active" duty he cannot say these things, I mean while "on" duty. On/off duty in the military is sometimes hard to define to those who have not been in but basically, if you look at it like a job, if you are doing something that is very military-like (i.e. standing a watch, conducting a patrol, serving food, cleaning a head, whatever) then you are "on" duty. When you are done doing those things and you are provided some time to do what you want to do (play basketball, take a nap (other than when on patrol), get something to eat (other than when on patrol), get something to drink, etc...) then you are "off" duty.

You can be "on" or "off" duty while being on "active" duty.

Whew. Perhaps we should start using some of the 1000s of Army acronyms now...



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AussieDingus
What if a soldier posts a comment saying "Obama is the greatest and doing a great job", will he/she still be punished for voicing a political comment, or will it be ignored because its a 'positive' comment ?


Yes

Depends on who hears you and the context. Everyone in the military has a political opinion regardless of some of the restrictions placed on their ability to express it. If a person were to say something great about a President while on duty and someone within earshot didn't like either the person saying it or the President they COULD make a stink about it. In most cases it shouldn't go anywhere if the comment is positive, but it is the military so a person can be charged for pretty much anything. See article 134, the "catch all" article used to charge military personnel when there is no other applicable article. Basically, you just make stuff up under this one.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

Marine sergeant who started a Facebook group that is openly critical of President Obama and posted comments saying he will not follow the unlawful orders of the commander in chief is facing possible dismissal from the Corps.

The Marines on Wednesday told Sgt. Gary Stein — a Camp Pendleton Marine who started the Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party — that he is in violation of Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities.

Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he started the page to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights. He has also criticized U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for his comments on Syria.

USA-TODA

This is an interesting turn of events and since the policy he signed when he entered prohibits him from voicing his political opinion then i guess the free speech scenario is a non-existent theory. In my opinion if he wanted to voice his political beliefs he should have resigned from the armed forces and entered the civilian life that allows such conduct as a civilian.



I'm not even going to profess to understand our leaders. The fact that our men are dying so we can have free speech, while they themselves cannot, it's mind boggling. We can even prosecute them for adultery, of all things, while their leader of the armed forces can commit adultery and nothing can happen to them. I think as long as he's not inciting a war or giving out secrets, they should be able to say what they want, within reason.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bakatono

Originally posted by AussieDingus
What if a soldier posts a comment saying "Obama is the greatest and doing a great job", will he/she still be punished for voicing a political comment, or will it be ignored because its a 'positive' comment ?


Yes

Depends on who hears you and the context. Everyone in the military has a political opinion regardless of some of the restrictions placed on their ability to express it. If a person were to say something great about a President while on duty and someone within earshot didn't like either the person saying it or the President they COULD make a stink about it. In most cases it shouldn't go anywhere if the comment is positive, but it is the military so a person can be charged for pretty much anything. See article 134, the "catch all" article used to charge military personnel when there is no other applicable article. Basically, you just make stuff up under this one.




Thats the strange thing about all this, the soldiers are supposedly fighting for "freedom and democracy", yet any comment that may be positive, or especially negative, can see them charged !
As long as you aren't revealing information that could endanger the lives of your fellow soldiers, or by revealing tactics of your own military, then you should be allowed to express an opinion under the banner of "freedom and democracy". Its like saying to the soldiers "you're allowed to put your life on the line to fight for freedom and democracy, but you arent allowed to practice it " !



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pez1975
 


All people in a position of power and status are subject to criticism from the masses, he's no exception.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
as much as I dislike the context I just want to put out there that the President is "Commander-in-Chief"
and as a subordinate you do not speak negativity towards your commanding officer. Just saying.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MastaShake

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

Originally posted by PFCStryker
An Officer on active duty cannot or may not under any circumstance influence, interfere, campaign or solicit votes for a particular issue weather it's about the current election or topic regarding "the freedom of speech". Once you sign those dotted lines you are acknowledging that you are giving up some of your civil rights to be a subordinate or someone who is under such commands. He should know better.
edit on 22-3-2012 by PFCStryker because: (no reason given)


That's just wrong on all levels.


how is that wrong? everything he said is 100% correct. what this guy did is clearly political i support the message hes putting out but it doesnt change the fact that he is in the wrong in this situation. very bad judgement on his part in my opinion.


It's 100% wrong. Active duty can do everything listed there. Hell, I had a friend who had an upside Bush sticker on his car with a red strikethru. It's perfectly acceptable. You can also express your personal options on candidates, issues, promote voting, join political clubs, sign political petitions, make a speech, interfere with an election, stand up and interrupt a speech, donate to your favorite candidate, post on abovetopsecret about ron paul, attend rallies and conventions, march in parades, etc.. etc..

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IN UNIFORM. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT IN UNIFORM.

Its right there, clear as day in the DoD Directive 1344.10 titled Political Activities by Members of the Armed Services. EVERY SINGLE THING PROHIBITED IS NULLIFIED IF YOU TAKE THE UNIFORM OFF... the whole caveat is that they don't want it to appear that THE MILITARY is sponsoring a particular candidate. I'm sure you are all smart enough to understand why THAT is a bad idea!



Subject to any other restrictions in law, a member of the Armed Forces not on active duty may take the actions or participate in the activities permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1., and may take the actions and participate in the activities prohibited in subparagraph 4.1.2, provided the member is not in uniform


It's a fact. You can do whatever you want without the uniform on as long as you are not acting as a military official.

Was this guy acting as a military official? That's all this investigation is about. I don't think they will have grounds to charge him with anything.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PFCStryker
@what they are:
I see that you're a veteran as well, Please accept a pat on the back comrade and I do apologize that the truth doesn't appease you at all. but you and I both know the vile reality of the establishment that we both signed in.
edit on 22-3-2012 by PFCStryker because: address response


Read up on what you can and can't do. Read DoD 1344.10. I'm sure you haven't yet or you wouldn't be saying these outrageous things.

For goodness sake, pull the wool from over your eyes man!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 


Enlistment Paperwork - fine print



It is very clearly spelled out (this form is from 1998 btw) that persons are subject to the UCMJ.

In this case UCMJ Article 117


917. ARTICLE 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
10. Punitive Articles

Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Article 134
Article 92


892. ARTICLE 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
10. Punitive Articles

Any person subject to this chapter who–


(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may dire


We can keep going but in this case the Marine is clearly in the wrong, which is to say its his methods of addressing the issue.


To support the post above mine -
Pentagon Policy - 1334.10

See Article 92 above.
edit on 23-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
as much as I dislike the context I just want to put out there that the President is "Commander-in-Chief"
and as a subordinate you do not speak negativity towards your commanding officer. Just saying.


What's amazing to me is that nobody is even very curious as to what this guy said that was "negative"? Did he call him names? Or just say he's going to vote for somebody else? Big difference.

As I understand it, the only "negative" thing this guy said was that he would refuse to attack or detain unarmed US citizens...NDAA and presidential decree or not.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yes. Always better to comb the fine print looking for a way to be an apologist for tyranny than to even take the time to find out what the "negative" comment was.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yes. Always better to comb the fine print looking for a way to be an apologist for tyranny than to even take the time to find out what the "negative" comment was.


Yes God forbid a person actually take responsibility for their own actions by reading the fine print before signing the contract.

Better to blame anyone and everyone else for his own laziness in addition to not understanding how your rights work when you enlist.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


You beat me to posting this, I see.

I'll have the mods close mine, but in case you're interested in reading it,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What a crock of excrement, if you ask me.
I think everyone should give Fakebook the boot. It's most certainly designed to seek out "terrorists" by baiting them by providing an outlet where they're encouraged to use their own rights as a citizen of this here great United States.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Aren't Marine corps sargents the backbone of the corps during training and in the field?
If they stand against the dictatorship that has been installed in the US then of course there will be repercussions.

Taken with the percentage of campaign contributions given to the one "peace and come home" candidate Ron Paul, Is this not an indication the military is starting to not just wake up...but stand up?
edit on 23-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join