Gary Stein, Marine Who Criticized Obama On Facebook, Will Receive Other-Than-Honorable Discharge

reply to post by Forevever


Hi for,
Don't you think Obama could make some hay with this oportunity.
He could get up to the podium and make his own jokes about Gary.
You know the big ole toothy SMILE.
Kind of like ole Ronnie here...
===============================================================================
While being rushed to the hospital after he was shot in 1981 he cracked to the doctors, "I hope you are all Republicans." And while governor of California he could be quick with a quip. While watching some student protests with aide Lyn Nofziger during the 1960s, they spotted a long-haired guy, who seemed a bit spaced out, waving a "Make Love, Not War" sign in the air. "Look at him, Lyn," Reagan said. "He doesn't look like he's capable of either."



The Genius of Ronald Reagan's Humor
www.aolnews.com/2011/02/03/the-genius-of-ronald-reagans-humor

cheers ljb

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by paradox

Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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."

 

Uh... Unless Obama ordered him not to say ***** on Facebook, he didn't break his oath. See, he would actually have to be given an order to break that order. In this case, he was just talking (a la free speech).

Words are not actions.

Uh unless you can't read

according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

He did break his oath...
He disregarded the UCMJ. Have you even read the thread?
Or the entire article in the OP?

You probably should.

ETA: Just saw your other post.
Good to see you're coming around.

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by Furbs

 

the POTUS is no citizens boss. He is an elected leader. Not Jesus Christ.

edit on 26-4-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

Are you kidding me?

He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He is the highest ranking member of all of the Armed Forces. He is -every- citizen soldier's boss.

reply to post by Furbs

Hi fur,
I would not go that far.
We need a strong defensive force for America. I would say a huge majority of our fighting folks are amazing decent people. Most civilians do not comprehend what a difficult and erratic ride these warriors have had since 911.
Walk a mile in the shoes of one. (boots) . Forget about the technical things like being prepared for combat.
The psychological aspects are quite awesome. Just a couple like, gay rights, women in combat zones,
the universal concept of the UGLY AMERICAN and the what the f am I doing here syndrome??
These are tough times for our brave. What they need is relief.
Relief from THE TOP.
The best hopefully ljb

reply to post by BIHOTZ


Since you seem so into the Constitution, maybe you should read the Constitution in its entirety?

www.usconstitution.net...

Article I section 8 states Congress shall have the power:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

He went against those regulations (UCMJ) plain and simple.
It is constitutional. You are part of the military, and you will lose your job if you break the rules. It is no different than if you were making a mockery of your boss at work.

The President is your boss and commander in chief when you are in the military. If you can't understand it, I think it's best you stay out of any military affairs then.

After skimming over the UCMJ, I think the guy probably got what he should have expected. Was it what he deserved? I think that comes down to the Facebook firing issue that's been circulating for at least a few years, and a different topic of conversation entirely.

I don't think the issue is quite the military one that's being made of it by some people, though. A lot of people have posted comparisons between this and a civilian employee in regards to Employee Handbooks (which the UCMJ seems to be, just for military personnel?) and that seems to be the whole of the situation.

If he'd gotten a dishonorable, I'd be more upset. I'm not 100% sure what an OTH discharge is, but it seems to be the midpoint between honorable and dishonorable. I do hope the guy gets his benefits, which appears to still be possible. Stupider things have been put on Facebook before.

reply to post by Furbs

I am not arguing what the rules are. I say they are invalid since soldiers vote.......

maybe they shouldn't vote? What if the pres ordered them to vote for him?

see the dilemma.....bad rules....not valid.

Unfortunately, when you sign-up for the armed forces, as I did, you become a "military citizen," not just a "normal" citizen. Being a military citizen has its rewards, but it also has its drawbacks, freedom of speech being somewhat curtailed. To be a member of the military, you take an OATH (voluntary, if you want to join) to protect your country (blah blah blah) and to follow the orders of the officers appointed over you AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. He is the hightest ranking "officer" in the chain of command, and he happens to be THE PRESIDENT. Had this marine done this in the Bush era, as I'm sure many did, he would have been disciplined and/or separated. From what I've read at the beginning of the thread, apparently he was warned by his superiors to discontinue his Facebook ridicule of his Commander-in-Chief. He did not. The marines are the most disciplined of the armed forces. He did not follow orders.

Further, it takes more than a single incident like this to get kicked-out of the military. It takes a pattern of behavior. This was probably the last straw in a string of bad conduct. But, right-wingers and Obama-haters will take this completely out of context to make it seem like the President Himself descended into this marine's camp and fired him personally. Not so. Again, it takes more than this; it takes a string of bad conduct. He didn't follow the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) when ordered to discontinue this behavior which goes against the discipline and respect needed for a smoothly functioning military unit.

reply to post by paradox

He did break his oath...
He disregarded the UCMJ. Have you even read the thread?
Or the entire article in the OP?

You probably should.

ETA: Just saw your other post.
Good to see you're coming around.

I was a little quick to respond as most the posts in the thread were just addressing the comment and not his other actions.

I think if it had been simply a status update that said "I will not follow all the orders of the president", if those orders are not lawful he is not bound by the rule cited in this thread, and in fact he is bound by lawful orders and can be prosecuted for following unlawful orders which would fall under section 92? of the UCMJ.

Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it.

. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

Link

It is great for any military to pledge allegiance to their leaders and to the nation, however, we cannot ignore the fact that all military in the US is only obliged to follow lawful orders.... I think that's important to be mentioned.

I understand where loyalties come in, and the conditioning that the military goes through, but every service member is still expected to hold up the law.

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by Furbs

 

I am not arguing what the rules are. I say they are invalid since soldiers vote.......

maybe they shouldn't vote? What if the pres ordered them to vote for him?

see the dilemma.....bad rules....not valid.

The rules aren't invalid, as they are a contract that the soldiers signed when joining the military. The soldiers wave their rights to civilian courts and instead allow themselves to be judged by military arbitration.

Voting is not a right given up by citizen soldiers, and even if they were illegally ordered to vote for the President, no one has the authority to check to see if they actually did.

There is no dilemma.

reply to post by boncho


Yes, it's not really anything to do with that comment he made. It's to do with him posting Obama's face on movie posters making fun of him, and creating a facebook page in order to use his rank and Marine Corps title to publicize his political opinions. This violates Article 134 of the UCMJ and DoD directive 1344.10

reply to post by Furbs


but if they cannot speak to others honestly and inform themselves, or others, then their vote is compromised. It can then be influenced and in essence is predetermined. That is wrong. If any other group did that they would be looked at as having committed voter fraud.

Like if at my job we couldn't talk about politics, even when off duty, and I sign some crap document that says I agree to that. That document is still invalid since the law says you can't do that to US citizens. We have to have free elections.

I know this is all BS in practice, but that is another problem, not an eternal fact of life.

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by boncho

 

Yes, it's not really anything to do with that comment he made. It's to do with him posting Obama's face on movie posters making fun of him, and creating a facebook page in order to use his rank and Marine Corps title to publicize his political opinions. This violates Article 134 of the UCMJ and DoD directive 1344.10

edit on 4-26-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

Yep. I agree with you completely. It's my fault as I missed those details with my first post. But it's still worth discussion, so people reading know the difference.

Cheers.

Originally posted by 200Plus
This guy swore an oath to obey the orders of President of the United States and then said he would refuse to honor that oath. What is a soldier without honor?

With this logic the Nazi's had honor, the Japanese had honor when they raped, tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of chinese civilians. As long as a soldier is following orders, no matter how horrific, as long as he's following them he is honorable?

Let the illegal and aggressive wars continue.

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by Furbs

 

but if they cannot speak to others honestly and inform themselves, or others, then their vote is compromised. It can then be influenced and in essence is predetermined. That is wrong. If any other group did that they would be looked at as having committed voter fraud.

It is not against the rules for someone to have a Facebook page to read the opinions of others. It was against the rules to espouse their opinion on Facebook. It is not illegal to read media opinion, it is against the rules to express it.

Like if at my job we couldn't talk about politics, even when off duty, and I sign some crap document that says I agree to that. That document is still invalid since the law says you can't do that to US citizens. We have to have free elections.

Not only would your document be legal and binding and a reason to lose your job, such documents are standard boilerplate in some industries.

reply to post by Drezden


Over simplification much?

By your arguement all men are rapists because some men are rapists.

reply to post by Furbs


I see we understand each other's point of view. I will not try and convince you, you will probably get tired before I change my mind.

I honestly would like to know.

I have my doubts about the legality of trying to make me do something while not on duty. I also am doubtful about any document that makes you surrender your civil liberties. It seems like it wouldn't be valid since they don't have the authority to take them away for whatever reason they deem fit.

I see it like if your soon to be employer asks you if you plan on getting pregnant. Yes he should know if it is a physically demanding job. He does not have a legal right to know. He can ask all women to sign away their right to not reveal their personal information like their reproductive habits. Even if they signed something I doubt it would be a legal document.

You can't agree to commit a crime in a legal manner. You can do it, but any contract our sign is just paper.


EDIT: can you give me an example that you know of. I am having a hard time finding one. Thanks.

reply to post by RyanFromCan


I love when people twist things to fit thier needs.

It is easy to see who is the civilian and who is the veteran by the replies here.

As I have never been given an unlawful order I do not know how I would react. I do know that it is a real stretch to assume "Occupy anything" is going to be shot on. So a crowd wanders around unbathed for weeks, that should be punishment enough in my eyes.

@Drezden - People assume any order given to a soldier must be compared to a nazi. The boogey man isn't under the bed I promise. Let the nazi #e have a rest. Maybe I should start pointing out the crimes commited by civilians daily. After all as a civilian you are just as guilty of the sames crimes any other civilian commits. Right?

I found this:

Critical theories

[edit] Consent of the governed

An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau's friend, the philosopher David Hume, who in 1742 published an essay "Of Civil Liberty", in whose second part, entitled, "Of the Original Contract [10] ", he stressed that the concept of a "social contract" was a convenient fiction:


AS no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. . . .

The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article.

The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him.

—David Hume, "On Civil Liberty" [II.XII.1] [10]

Hume argued that consent of the governed was the ideal foundation on which a government could rest, but that it had not actually occurred this way in general.


My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted.

—Ibid II.XII.20

[edit] Natural law and constitutionalism

Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued[11] that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, it is not consent to any rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties).

This has also been discussed by O.A. Brownson,[12] who argued that, in a sense, three "constitutions" are involved: first the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law"; second the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government; by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.

Tacit consent

The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government, if any. This consent is what gives legitimacy to such government.

However, other writers have argued that consent to join the society is not necessarily consent to its government. For that, the government must be according to a constitution of government that is consistent with the superior unwritten constitutions of nature and society.[12]

[edit] Voluntarism

According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, in his essay No Treason, argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; then, more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties.


Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.[13]

en.wikipedia.org...

EDIT:

Consent theory is a term for the idea in social philosophy that individuals primarily make decisions as free agents entering into consensual relationships with other free agents, and that this becomes the basis for political governance. An early elaborator of this idea was John Locke, from whom the expression "all men are created equal" can be traced. Consent theory goes back at least to the 16th century.[1]

[edit] Criticism

One criticism is after the original administering of consent by the people, subsequent generations often only give tacit consent to the government. Without the power to refuse consent, true consent cannot be given

en.wikipedia.org...

Well now everyone knows the easy way out of war.