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.

 

Marine who criticized Obama on Facebook should be dismissed: panel

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Marine who criticized Obama on Facebook should be dismissed: panel


A Marine who posted on Facebook that he would not follow orders from President Barack Obama should be dismissed from the military with a less-than-honorable discharge, a Marine Corps review board ruled.

Stein had posted comments saying he would refuse to obey orders from the president, who is the commander-in-chief of the military, on a Facebook page called the Armed Forces Tea Party page.

He later removed the comments and said he meant only unlawful orders.

He also posted comments to a Facebook network called METOC, which is limited to active duty meteorologists and oceanographers, where he described Obama as an enemy to America.

A coalition of attorneys support Stein, saying in a written statement that the First Amendment guarantees his freedom of speech.

NewsYahoo


I'm not sure that the first amendment gives a marine the right to refuse the orders of Obama as commander in chief.

On the other hand, he didn't actually refuse an order.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
He should have just kept his mouth shut. That's where he went wrong. People seem to forget that when you are on active duty you do not have total free speech. If he really wanted to show his will to refuse to carry out unlawful orders then he should have waited until those orders were given.

He put himself out there and it bit him in the long run. I don't agree with how things are done but that is how it turned out. I believe those on active duty should be entitled to the same rights they swore to defend but I also understand some of the reasons why it is the way it is. It is sad that he chose his ego over his career.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Tough luck but maybe people will learn that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You can say what you want when you want. Don't, however, expect people to sit idly by with what you say. They are free to disagree. They are also free to kick your ass out of the military.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
When you go into the military, you pretty much sell yourself to the government. He was basically an indentured servant talking back against his master.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
When you go into the military, you pretty much sell yourself to the government. He was basically an indentured servant talking back against his master.


I find it interesting that a coalition of attorneys are claiming that the First Amendment guarantees his freedom of speech.

Surely if you join the marines, you agree to follow orders?



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I'm with the kangaroo, here.


This isn't about freedom of speech, though. It's about Obama being an aspirant dictator, and that Marine remembering that his oath binds him to defend the Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic.

If Barrack Obama isn't a domestic threat to the American Constitution, then I'm not sure what is.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
He should be happy for getting dismissed. It is not dishonorable discharge so it isn't going to get you any problems in life.

But freedom of speech is freedom to disagree/offend people. Kind of silly that he could be dismissed for using his 1rst amendment.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
He should be happy for getting dismissed. It is not dishonorable discharge so it isn't going to get you any problems in life.

But freedom of speech is freedom to disagree/offend people. Kind of silly that he could be dismissed for using his 1rst amendment.


How should the rights of the individual be balanced against the rights of the group?

If individual rights are allowed to entirely over-ride the rights of the group, there is no group left.

Merely many individuals.

I fear that the coalition of attorneys saying that the First Amendment guarantees his freedom of speech is forgetting that. Their job turns on protecting individuals rights after all rather than the rights of the group.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


The group that he belongs to is that of a United States Citizen. Unless he signed a contract waiving his freedom of speech then the 1rst amendment still applies.
edit on 8-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
The group that he belongs to is that of a United States Citizen. Unless he signed a contract waiving his freedom of speech then the 1rst amendment still applies.
edit on 8-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Apparently that right of freedom of speech doesn't extend to stating that he would refuse to obey orders from the president, the commander in chief.

Not if he wishes to remain in the US marines.

Does the right to freedom of speech (the right of the individual) over-ride the right of the US marines (the right of the group) to expect its marines to obey a lawful order?

No individual rights are absolute. Even the right to life can and has been infringed upon by the group.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Here's the thing about what you're saying: he didn't act, he just talked about it. Personally, I think he ought to be able to talk about it all he wants; I just view it as some dude who was whining.

"The rights of the group" don't come into play here because all he was doing was talking smack. If he acted on it, then we could talk about that particular subject.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Individual rights aren't absolute unless you sign yourself away from them or unless you infringe upon another individuals right. Group rights doesn't really exist in the USA. The only group that matters under the constitution is if you're considered a person and a citizen. This is why corporations fought to become "people".



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Here's the thing about what you're saying: he didn't act, he just talked about it. Personally, I think he ought to be able to talk about it all he wants; I just view it as some dude who was whining.

"The rights of the group" don't come into play here because all he was doing was talking smack. If he acted on it, then we could talk about that particular subject.


That is a good point.

It is difficult to know where to draw the line.

The marine corps appears to take a dim view of a marine stating in a public forum that he plans to not obey a lawful order from the commander in chief.

I have sympathy for their position.

If I wrote in a public forum that I planned to not obey a legal order from my boss and also described my boss as an enemy of America in another public forum, would that justify my boss firing me?

Probably.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
How ever this is a case of a mountain out of a molehill

An overreaction by incompetent blowhards...


If I was in charge it would be done the proper way...

134 NJP proceeding

Most this is a warning, black mark on his record, and possibly 60 days on restriction...

Maybe a bust in rank down one... most likely suspended bust...


However if it continues the next is a repeat plus

reduction in rank is official,
half months pay times two

if within 180 days of first incident, one month in the brig



this is overdoing it for a minor breach in protocol-

there way is overkill


Now as for the panel who made a politically based decision...

180 days in the brig hard labor
reduction in rank to e-1
Half months pay for 12 months

first month in brig to be spent at CIA facility for water boarding training
-- to see if they have any associates

any request for court martial raises the stakes to treason
trial to be held in secret per SOP-


once found guilty (and they will be)
they will be hung
survivors will be shot
further survivors will be dropped in acid and left

We are in two wars- one on drugs one on terror- yes treason with the death penalty



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join