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

@what they are:

Thank you for the response, I do understand your point. but the guys defense is weak. It is not about the freedom of speech at all, he is attempting to influence like-minded individuals. when you get sworn and take the oath, whether you're in or not in uniform you are a soldier and that oath sticks to you at all times. UCMJ states that you cannot be insubordinate when it comes to superior officers. and questioning a superior or the commander in chief on a public forum falls under that. If the military wants your opinion, they will ask you! and he served 9 years? yes! he should have known better than making his own interpretations. and I do understand that he's a fellow marine of yours so of course I know you got his back. but 'cmon don't you think he embarrassed the whole corps by acting like a college kid in a dorm room?

Originally posted by loam

All this oath nonsense...

Politicians take oaths too, but the standards applied to their adherence are substantially different in comparison, don't you think?

Such paint-by-numbers dribble.

Sorry, but he did violate the UCMJ. I think the O is a pile of manure in a suit, but making that statement as an active duty marine is prejudicial to good order and discipline. He should have made the statement on his personal page as an individual.

The difference between a Marine and a politician is that Marines take their oath seriously.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Maybe the military needs to change. Oh, that's right. They are. Drones don't have opinions and are more easily controlled. I suppose there are more positives to replacing human soldiers besides the fact that you don't have to pay drones, give them health care, and don't forget those pesky retirement/pension/education plans.

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.

Well it’s a little more complicated than that...could you imagine war starts and every men and women who serve gets to voice their opinion? Well look I know it’s a very sensitive issue but if you join up then follow the rules....if what is asked of you goes against the constitution then stand up for the people, but in the mean time follow the rules, protect your country, and serve with respect and dignity. That’s my opinion a wrong does not correct a wrong.

Originally posted by CanadianBlueTrue

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.

Well it’s a little more complicated than that...could you imagine war starts and every men and women who serve gets to voice their opinion? Well look I know it’s a very sensitive issue but if you join up then follow the rules....if what is asked of you goes against the constitution then stand up for the people, but in the mean time follow the rules, protect your country, and serve with respect and dignity. That’s my opinion a wrong does not correct a wrong.

Well put, i agree with you on this and as a member posted up earlier, if you don't like the military then simply opt to leave and pursue your goals or ideas as a civilian. There is nothing wrong with feeling that your superior may be leading you down a path you do not approve of, but then again and keep this in mind, those that draw up the plans and execute are a breed of humans that often are unique amongst the majority of the human population, for they know that with a single order or action, they can terminate life without having the guilt weigh upon their conscious.

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

Originally posted by CanadianBlueTrue

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.

Well it’s a little more complicated than that...could you imagine war starts and every men and women who serve gets to voice their opinion? Well look I know it’s a very sensitive issue but if you join up then follow the rules....if what is asked of you goes against the constitution then stand up for the people, but in the mean time follow the rules, protect your country, and serve with respect and dignity. That’s my opinion a wrong does not correct a wrong.

Well put, i agree with you on this and as a member posted up earlier, if you don't like the military then simply opt to leave and pursue your goals or ideas as a civilian. There is nothing wrong with feeling that your superior may be leading you down a path you do not approve of, but then again and keep this in mind, those that draw up the plans and execute are a breed of humans that often are unique amongst the majority of the human population, for they know that with a single order or action, they can terminate life without having the guilt weigh upon their conscious.

Yep could you emagine if the men and women who served has an opinion in World War 3? Yep we would not have this forum of communication because we would of lost the war.

Originally posted by PFCStryker
@what they are:

Thank you for the response, I do understand your point. but the guys defense is weak. It is not about the freedom of speech at all, he is attempting to influence like-minded individuals. when you get sworn and take the oath, whether you're in or not in uniform you are a soldier and that oath sticks to you at all times. UCMJ states that you cannot be insubordinate when it comes to superior officers. and questioning a superior or the commander in chief on a public forum falls under that. If the military wants your opinion, they will ask you! and he served 9 years? yes! he should have known better than making his own interpretations. and I do understand that he's a fellow marine of yours so of course I know you got his back. but 'cmon don't you think he embarrassed the whole corps by acting like a college kid in a dorm room?

edit on 23-3-2012 by PFCStryker because: point added

I see your point. Perhaps he could have handled it better. Maybe he *could* have had more leway. I didn't read the page so I am not sure exactly what he said, but I am just trying to point out that the framework is set up so you can express and participate out-of-uniform in basically whatever you want.

Did he go overboard? Nobody knows, which is why there have been allegations (wrong or right) from other personnel. Certainly they are not military lawyers. This is precisely why he is undergoing administrative reviews. They will analyze what he has posted and make a determination if he is in violation of the UCMJ.

The way the article is written, and from my experience in the USMC, his superiors were trying to look out for him. He was cautioned that his actions may be questionable, told to read up on the rules. He did, and did not see him doing anything wrong. He was then told he could not use social media sites on gov. computers. That makes perfect sense.

Personally, I don't think he is in the wrong according to what is being said. When I served, I openly criticized Bush in front of my superiors. We all agreed that he was an idiot. Only enlisted people could give their opinions on this. Officers are barred from doing so.

Stein said ""I've done nothing wrong. I've only stated what our oath states that I will defend the constitution and that I will not follow unlawful orders. If that's a crime, what is America coming to?""

It's not illegal to not follow unlawful orders. Sure, you can be charged with something, but you'll likely get off. Insubordinate does not mean not following an unlawful order.

I don't agree with this, at all.

But he signed a contract, everyone in the service does. Must have not read the fine print (shocker).

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Maybe the military needs to change. Oh, that's right. They are. Drones don't have opinions and are more easily controlled. I suppose there are more positives to replacing human soldiers besides the fact that you don't have to pay drones, give them health care, and don't forget those pesky retirement/pension/education plans.

I was not aware drones just flew themselves.....

Oh wait, they dont....

Originally posted by pez1975
The disrespect this president gets daily from the american people is truly amazing. The out right bold face lies told about the president daily border on treason imo. If this was the 1940-50 people would be tried for some of the things said and thrown under the jail. people may not like his policy's but he is still our president and deserves respect he was elected by the majority of people in this country.

There is a difference between respecting the office of the Presidency and being critical of our leaders. As Americans, we are encouraged to be critical of our leaders. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; When the government fears the people, there is liberty." This soldier's actions were not treasonous IMO. As stated by another poster, he has sworn to protect our Constitution, not our leaders. If one day we end up with a dangerous leader, our armed forces WILL be the first to step up and protect the people of this country. Will you be upset when that President is being criticized?

reply to post by pez1975


Just because he is the president he deserves respect? Where have we seen that mentality in history?
Boohoo sad little president, Maybe he should start doing things to earn that respect..

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Maybe the military needs to change. Oh, that's right. They are. Drones don't have opinions and are more easily controlled. I suppose there are more positives to replacing human soldiers besides the fact that you don't have to pay drones, give them health care, and don't forget those pesky retirement/pension/education plans.

I was not aware drones just flew themselves.....

Oh wait, they dont....

True.
Don't worry though. Pretty soon all that will be left in the military are the really brainwashed ones who aren't able to think for themselves. When their role is called, they'll simply answer "Drone 23 -- Here".

reply to post by WhatAreThey


Alright, well said man. I do see the whole picture of what you're saying. but, for now I guess what we can do is wait for the decision.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Maybe the military needs to change. Oh, that's right. They are. Drones don't have opinions and are more easily controlled. I suppose there are more positives to replacing human soldiers besides the fact that you don't have to pay drones, give them health care, and don't forget those pesky retirement/pension/education plans.

I was not aware drones just flew themselves.....

Oh wait, they dont....

???? Since when ???

Drones DO FLY THEMSELVES according to pre-programmed flight routines. Those flight routines can then be taken over by a kid with an XBox controller whenever the military deems it necessary. Drones in service are capable of taking off, landing, running surveillance ops, and even basic search-and-destroy missions without human intervention.

Please, please, please, pick up a book. Seriously...just any kind of book. You are so uneducated, it's a danger to me and my family.

reply to post by milominderbinder


You should take your own advice...

Unmanned aerial vehicle

While drones can be autonomous, my response is correct. In order to do what the poster suggested, which is drones will phase humans out, there needs to be someone running the drone. Unless you are going to argue that drones can pick targets for itself without any person identifying the target as being hostile or neutral / non threat. Even more so since the enemies we are fighting dont have standard uniforms, identifiable military assets, fixed locations / base of operations, using off limit buildings like schools and hospitals and religious buildings...

Please educate yourself and read the posts in order to place it into context. That way you won't look uneducated yourself when you call people out and are wrong in the process.

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.

Because the rest of the country wouldn't stand with us. How large have the civilian 'end the war' protests been? In the beginning there were quite large numbers in my opinion, but now nobody cares, it's just another thing that you see on the news sometimes. Americans don't care, maybe its laziness that causes us to allow ridiculous laws to be passed right under our noses. Maybe its laziness that is still leading to the death of many in our name. We see other Nations standing up and demanding fair treatment and such, then when we look at America..what are we doing? Shopping, watching 'reality tv,' and criticizing the rest of the world.

Originally posted by PFCStryker
@what they are:

Thank you for the response, I do understand your point. but the guys defense is weak. It is not about the freedom of speech at all, he is attempting to influence like-minded individuals. when you get sworn and take the oath, whether you're in or not in uniform you are a soldier and that oath sticks to you at all times. UCMJ states that you cannot be insubordinate when it comes to superior officers. and questioning a superior or the commander in chief on a public forum falls under that. If the military wants your opinion, they will ask you! and he served 9 years? yes! he should have known better than making his own interpretations. and I do understand that he's a fellow marine of yours so of course I know you got his back. but 'cmon don't you think he embarrassed the whole corps by acting like a college kid in a dorm room?

edit on 23-3-2012 by PFCStryker because: point added

Speaking out about what you feel is wrong in your country should never be thought of as an embarrassment. If your name reflects your current grade than you have much to learn still, which is why you feel the way you do at this moment. Later on hopefully you will learn that being in the military almost gives you MORE of a right to speak your mind, whether UCMJ allows it or not is besides the point. Being in the military you see things first hand that others only see on the news, and your opinions of certain situations may very well be much more accurate of current events than what anyone else is seeing on tv. Soldiers should always speak out, if your patriotism gets in the way and you voice your opinion about certain things it should never be seen as an embarrassment.

reply to post by cerebralassassins


A civilian with absolutely no military experience should not become US President & Commander and Chief of the most powerful military in the world!

At least the men among the British Royals have to do service.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
A civilian with absolutely no military experience should not become US President & Commander and Chief of the most powerful military in the world!

We are required to have civilian leadership over our armed forces.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
At least the men among the British Royals have to do service.

Joints Chiefs are the Presidents advisors.
The National Security Advisor
Head of the NSA
DIA
etc etc etc

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

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 understand your point, but isn't it correct that when one enters the military he cannot voice his or her political views or opinion ?

You may, but not in uniform, and not when representing yourself as a service member. So I could show up at a protest in civvies and protest my butt off. But I can't wear a uniform, nor can I get on stage and with impunity say "Hi, I'm Tom Bedlam, and I'm an Army E7 with (xxx) here to protest!"

I have to do it as plain ol' Tom. Thus if I do so on a fb page decorated all over with Marine logos etc it's not a good career choice. I could make all the fb pages that had pics of my family and whatnot, and splat an OWS manifesto in there, fine. But not in an area I had also covered with Army stuff, because that implies that the Army shares my views. In that case I'm putting my self forward as a representative of that military branch, and in that environment I do not have a political opinion to express. You should be glad I don't. It is the function of the civilian government to set policy. Not me. In my private capacity you bet I do. But not under the color of an NCO.

Next - the President, like it or not, is at the top of your food chain. He is your highest military commander. He is the CEO and president of Army, Inc. You thus cannot badmouth him at ANY time without having failed the UCMJ's rules against disrespect of a superior officer or NCO. I could sassmouth a Senator or Rep if I felt like I could get away with it, but not the President, because he is my most superior officer.

Did I explain it well enough to make sense? You sort of pick this up by osmosis.

edit to add: Apparently I CAN'T sass a congresscritter in uniform, or couldn't if I were an officer:

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

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.