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: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by shadwgirl

WOW. I don't even know where to begin. I suppose you said the same about Bush? I bet not. No one deserves respect, it needs to be earned and obama has done nothing, in my opinion, to earn it.


You are not showing respect to the man, you are showing respect to the office.

In similar fashion, when you salute you're actually saluting the uniform, but I digress.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought

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".


I wont agree with you here, not every grunt or foot soldier is a drone, many so called "drones" have later changed the course of man kind, so i would be careful if not down right thoughtful of those "drones" you wish to speak of.
edit on 24-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by shadwgirl

WOW. I don't even know where to begin. I suppose you said the same about Bush? I bet not. No one deserves respect, it needs to be earned and obama has done nothing, in my opinion, to earn it.


You are not showing respect to the man, you are showing respect to the office.

In similar fashion, when you salute you're actually saluting the uniform, but I digress.
The O disrespects the office and this nation by his actions every single day. I will not show him even the basest sort of tacit support by offering him, or the office he denigrates daily, any sort of respect. He is a pile of garbage in a suit and needs to be taken out of our house because he is stinking up the place.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
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.


I do respect your post and yes i do agree with you here. As most may recall when England decided to attack Argentina during the Falkland war we did have some feedback regarding a certain royal member and his quick removal from the front line once the sh!t begun to hit the home front. This was when i lost respect of that so called royal family and that's when the average Englishman or pom or u.k citizen gained my respect. This also applies to the thousands who sign up for service in the u.s. and to any other nation. Sadly and i see this as you may also see this that leaders of a nation do not enter service and this has a direct impact on a nations ability to stand on its own two feet. One needs to feel what it is like to sleep under the stars, feed him or herself from the land and rely on one another to acknowledge that human interaction is the highest form on an evolutionary scale. This is in my opinion, what is missing throughout the planet and as such has brought about so much misery to the human race within the past decade.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
wars should be led from the front
then there would be a lot less of them



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 

Based off of the current geopolitical situation of the area, a military person is really not off of duty at any time. Right now the military personell, if they are not on leave are considered to be on active duty, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The UCMJ does not say that they will be given 8 hours of sleep, rather the contract that they signed states that they are entitled to 4 hours of sleep and one meal a day. The rest is simply a matter of the standing orders. The reality is that you do not bad mouth your boss at any times.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Soldiers are meant to do a simple thing
follow orders and stfu.

I don't care if its GWB or Obama, you keep your lip shut about your commander and chief while working for him/us.

No, I don't want half our military starting to walk off, saying they won't follow orders because of whatever wacko partisan nonsense is going on...don't like it, get out.

Can you imagine a military that worked like the citizens do, with half demanding they won't do their job because their favorite side of the political money show isn't in office curently?

Soldier...shut up, get out, or be locked away and made an example of.

Let me guess though, lots of right wingers here are cheering him on because they side with him...but, of course if this happened 8 years ago with their god GWB, it would have been treason and the commie liberal soldier refusing to follow orders should be shot on sight.


I just love your attitude. "Shut the # up and go risk your life for me"

Yeah, right

First off, Reagan is conservative god, not GWB lolololol
In fact, nobody in the party likes GWB! How about that! GWB was a terrible president, and many people spoke out against him, including people in the military.

Our military deserves the right to vote and speak. In fact, they deserve it more than these people sitting around defending everything our government does without a second glance. They are the ones defending us, we should be supporting them. Some of them know more than we do. This is probably why they arent allowed to vote.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatAreThey

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.


I already pointed this out on page 3 or so of this thread...here but since its gone on a while again....

He is clearly and unquestionably 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 (FB is published literature) even if he doesn't use his rank at the bottom.

Sorry those are the rules.


Originally posted by WhatAreThey

Only enlisted people could give their opinions on this. Officers are barred from doing so.


Correct Article 88 applies only to Commissioned Officers - In the Army I have had to remind Warrant Officers that at CW2 they become Commissioned Officers... I was in SF - honestly I could care less what the Officers, Warrants, NCOs or Soldiers said about the POTUS in private conversation. As long as it didn't become excessive in nature and they did what I wanted I could care less.


Originally posted by WhatAreThey

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.


Again, correct; however, the order Stien failed to obey was issued by the SecDef in a written policy or order (see above).



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SGTSECRET
 



We are all entitled to our own opinion Sergeant. I have mine and you have yours. Thank you for expressing your point.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by humanityisawful

Our military deserves the right to vote and speak. In fact, they deserve it more than these people sitting around defending everything our government does without a second glance. They are the ones defending us, we should be supporting them. Some of them know more than we do. This is probably why they arent allowed to vote.


Please understand that those in the military absolutely have the right to vote and to express their individual opinion on politics and the candidates and incumbents running for office in private converstations.

There is a thin line in there for the military to follow which requires they maintain a clear separation and distinction when addressing the issue so as to not give the impression that the opinions they express somehow represent the military or service members when they do so.

SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces


4.1. General

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.


This guy went wrong by organizing a group which is expressly against the restrictions in the same policy.

Cheers!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

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.


AGREED!!! PLEASE DON'T EVER STOP SPEAKING YOUR MIND!!!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Well, America is exactly like China, a dictatorship. Everyone outside America knows this....just not American people. Even Robert De Niro had to apologize for a hilarious comment the other day!!

This Marine sounds like he actually has a brain....one in a million!! I agree with his view. But he should of known the President has some say in the politics of the armed forces....then again he is a marine!!



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Six6Six
 


If he had a brain, not to mention the fact he has been in the Marine Corp for 9 years now, he would know his actions would get him in trouble. Even more surprising was the fact he already got in trouble for it once, yet decided to ignore that and do it again.

As was stated, and many peope who don't understand the military ignore, you voluntarily give up certain rights when you voluntarily join the military.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Six6Six
 


If he had a brain, not to mention the fact he has been in the Marine Corp for 9 years now, he would know his actions would get him in trouble. Even more surprising was the fact he already got in trouble for it once, yet decided to ignore that and do it again.

As was stated, and many peope who don't understand the military ignore, you voluntarily give up certain rights when you voluntarily join the military.


Ever stop to think that perhaps not everyone is as selfish as you seem to be?

Read up on the story. This Marine VOLUNTARILY chose to put himself in a position which could land him in "trouble" because he felt it was important to clearly state that he would not be following any orders which violated the law or the United States Constitution...especially in regards to the unlawful detention of unarmed civilian protestors.

Furthermore, this Marine has not requested any "sympathy" from you. Instead, he has elected to take one on the chin to call attention to just how disturbing it is that a Marine refusing to attack his own people is considered "insubordinate" or a "derogatory remark" about the President.

HE might have given up some rights...but I sure as hell didn't. I personally find it comforting that this soldier is willing to stand up for my rights even when the government seeks to take them away.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
He's not facing the boot for being anti-Obama.

He's facing the boot for publicly saying he is refusing to take orders from his Commander-in-Chief.

In World War I, he probably would have been shot.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Ever stop to think that perhaps not everyone is as selfish as you seem to be?

Read up on the story. This Marine VOLUNTARILY chose to put himself in a position which could land him in "trouble" because he felt it was important to clearly state that he would not be following any orders which violated the law or the United States Constitution...especially in regards to the unlawful detention of unarmed civilian protestors.

Furthermore, this Marine has not requested any "sympathy" from you. Instead, he has elected to take one on the chin to call attention to just how disturbing it is that a Marine refusing to attack his own people is considered "insubordinate" or a "derogatory remark" about the President.

HE might have given up some rights...but I sure as hell didn't. I personally find it comforting that this soldier is willing to stand up for my rights even when the government seeks to take them away.


Seems to me you are missing the forest for the trees...

This kid has organized a partisan political organization which is specifically prohibited by DOD directive or policy. It’s got nothing to do with the detention of Americans or any of that crap or even his apparent lack of respect for the POTUS - it a cut and dry case in which he violated policy. Article 92.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Ever stop to think that perhaps not everyone is as selfish as you seem to be?

In no way shape or form am I being selfish.


Originally posted by milominderbinder
Read up on the story. This Marine VOLUNTARILY chose to put himself in a position which could land him in "trouble" because he felt it was important to clearly state that he would not be following any orders which violated the law or the United States Constitution...especially in regards to the unlawful detention of unarmed civilian protestors.

Then he should not be surprised at the reaction of the military now should he? I respect his right to voice his opinion as a citizen. As a member of the military he knows better and as a NCO he is quite familiar with the UCMJ and the purpose of keeping politics out of the military mindset.

As Ive stated in previous posts. I dont think its his position on that topic that got him in trouble. Its the manner in which he expressed that viewpoint that got him in trouble. As stated he already got warned once from his command a year prior that the activity was a no no.

Let me throw some legalities out there. A law is passed that allows the use of full time military under federal command to engage in and arrest people, including citizens. My argument has been that US Supreme Court rulins over the last 10 years, starting with the Patriot act, Military Commission Acts of 06/08 and 09, in addition to various legal challenges by detained combatents have established a clear case law that says the militay cannot engage in that behavior.

Let me give you the flip side to the argument now. The Marine states its against the law for full time military to engage in those activites, and right now he is correct and supported by the Posse Commitatus Act. That law was an act of Congress pass4ed in the aftermath of the Civil war.

That law, and nowhere in the Constitution, does it prevent the use of military units to engage in civilian law enforcement functions. Posse Commitatus can be revoked / modified by congress at any point. Publically calling out the President and stating he would refuse an order because its illegal, when in fact its not, is a problem.

The military is not supposed to be engaging the government when it comes to policies / domestic / federal law. Hence the reason they are subject to the UCMJ and not domestic laws. They accept limits on their constitutional rights to specifically keep the military in check and under the control of civilian leadership.

I am sure that you have had a job where you did not agree with a boss or employment policy. Do you think you would get in trouble if you decided to challenge that policy? Even if you did it at home on your own time does not negate the fact you can still be held accountible by your employer and fired from your job.



Originally posted by milominderbinder
Furthermore, this Marine has not requested any "sympathy" from you. Instead, he has elected to take one on the chin to call attention to just how disturbing it is that a Marine refusing to attack his own people is considered "insubordinate" or a "derogatory remark" about the President.

You really need to quit fear mongering... Attack his own people. Please point out where the NDAA or even Posse Commitatus states that. I have no sympathy for him because as a 9 year vetrine who has been in trouble for theis before opted to go back down the road again.

The President is the commander in Chief, and as such the Marine should be choosing his words / posture carefully, specifically to avoid whats coming down the pipeline.



Originally posted by milominderbinder
HE might have given up some rights...but I sure as hell didn't. I personally find it comforting that this soldier is willing to stand up for my rights even when the government seeks to take them away.

Again the UCMJ and Domestic laws are not interchangeable, and its like that for very specific reasons. There are many members of the military who dont care for Obama. They voice those opinions, and do so in a manner that complies with the orders / policies by their superiors.

As a member of Law Enforcement I have issues with the NDAA, and have stated many times I would not engage in any action that would violate my oath or the laws of my state or the constitution of my state or the federal one. With that being said im subject to a chain of command as well, as we have policies in place that prevents an officer from engaging in political actions that would lead a person to the conclusion the personal view point is supported officially by the agency.

This is the exact same issue with the Marine. When you disagree thats fine. When you create a facebook page that essentially recruits members of the armed forces, identifying yourself as a member of the military, its not a hard argument to make that he violated the policy, and violted it willfully.

I dont support the NDAA nor do I support the use of Federal military units engaging in civilian law enforcement functions - period. With that being said, aside from Supreme Court case laws, that law (the NDAA and Posse Commitatus) run off of each other. All it takes is an act of Congress to make the changes that would pass Constitutional scrutiny.

Please show me where it States in the US Constitution that the military is not to be used for civilian law enforcement functions.

Hence my argument.... Its not so much what he stated, its how he stated it and the forum he chose to state it in.
edit on 26-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
He's not facing the boot for being anti-Obama.

He's facing the boot for publicly saying he is refusing to take orders from his Commander-in-Chief.

In World War I, he probably would have been shot.


Incorrect. He's not refusing to take orders from his Commander-in-Chief. He's refusing to take unlawful orders which openly violate The Constitution of The United States and/or require him to attack unarmed U.S. citizens demonstrating peacefully.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by babybunnies
He's not facing the boot for being anti-Obama.

He's facing the boot for publicly saying he is refusing to take orders from his Commander-in-Chief.

In World War I, he probably would have been shot.


Incorrect. He's not refusing to take orders from his Commander-in-Chief. He's refusing to take unlawful orders which openly violate The Constitution of The United States and/or require him to attack unarmed U.S. citizens demonstrating peacefully.


Please cite the section of the US Constitution that prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra


Then he should not be surprised at the reaction of the military now should he? I respect his right to voice his opinion as a citizen. As a member of the military he knows better and as a NCO he is quite familiar with the UCMJ and the purpose of keeping politics out of the military mindset.

WHO SAYS HE'S SURPRISED? To date, you are the only person I have talked to who seems to think he is in anyway surprised. From what I understand, he fully and knowingly anticipated the military's temper-tantrum and CHOSE to do so anyway so that perhaps [even douchebags like you aren't attacked by your own military someday.


As Ive stated in previous posts. I dont think its his position on that topic that got him in trouble. Its the manner in which he expressed that viewpoint that got him in trouble. As stated he already got warned once from his command a year prior that the activity was a no no.


So what? Just because somebody "tells you" to do something...you do it? What the hell is wrong with you? You would have made an excellent an member of the SS. All those good Germans were "just following orders" too.



Let me throw some legalities out there. A law is passed that allows the use of full time military under federal command to engage in and arrest people, including citizens. My argument has been that US Supreme Court rulins over the last 10 years, starting with the Patriot act, Military Commission Acts of 06/08 and 09, in addition to various legal challenges by detained combatents have established a clear case law that says the militay cannot engage in that behavior.


I stand corrected. You ARE an excellent member of SS. You are willing to support any "law" is passed including direct the direct subversion of Constitutional and Human rights simply because a politician told you to. Adolf would be proud. However, your Mother must be ashamed.



That law, and nowhere in the Constitution, does it prevent the use of military units to engage in civilian law enforcement functions. Posse Commitatus can be revoked / modified by congress at any point. Publically calling out the President and stating he would refuse an order because its illegal, when in fact its not, is a problem.


Have you ever read Constitution? It's freely available online...you should check it out sometime.

Article I
- 8.12 To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
- 8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Article II
- 2.1 The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Article IV

- 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...continued in next post.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join