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

Why is it hard to understand that as a soldier, you don't promote any sort of dissent in the ranks? Always has been that way; we're the bullet stoppers and our job is to shut our yaps and stop the bullets.

Sadly he bought into the vitriol of a party who had 20 years of presidential control since the start of the 80s and those years have been some of our darkest years. He ran his yap, he gets what he deserves by military code for running his yap.

Why is that a problem?

Derek

reply to post by BIHOTZ


Only that has nothing to do with anything at all.

No one forces you to sign up for the military. There are things you read, and then sign agreeing to.

Bottom line.
Nothing you paste here is going to change facts and reality.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

Here's the thing , in the Military we have a set of guidelines that we operate by, it's called the UCMJ , or Uniform Code Of Military Justice, think of it as your job's "Employee Handbook" on steroids.

Now like most jobs there are areas in that document involving employment policies, practices and procedures, ethics, standards of conduct...etc

Yes, a private sector job does fit your description, and if you held a political opinion, and were fired for it, you could go after them for wrongful dismissal, and would likely win. I you posted something about your boss, in the private sector, you may lose your job, and possibly have a leg to stand on legally to come back at the for wrongful dismissal, you would also likely not lose your pension.

When you work in the public sector, as in a government job or military, it happens that your bosses are the politicians, but that does not deny your right to a public opinion, but you should be careful. My real problem with this situation, is the possible removal of his pension, and benefits. In the private sector, it is near impossible to remove your benefits, that you have paid into (yes, even co-pay), you earned them, regardless of how you leave the job, removing them in this case goes beyond a dismissal, it is an attempt to grind him into the ground, not punish him, but absolutely destroy him. The punishment goes well beyond what is reasonable if they take away his pension and benefits.

"If you made a facebook page about your boss and he/she found out would you expect to keep your job?"

It would probably violate the "Ethics & Code of Conduct" section in your "Employee Handbook" Is that a violation of your 1st amendment rights? No, you are entitled to say whatever you want, It isn't illegal...but there may be repercussions involved.

If it was in the private sector, it would be a violation of your first amendment rights, and yes, there are repercussions for whatever you say, but again, the taking away of your constitutional and natural rights would be an issue, an issue you could possibly go after the company over.

Now, if you were terminated from your job for posting negative things about your boss on facebook, would you then try to accuse your company of trying to silence you and eradicate your view? Of course not, that's what happens when you get caught posting about your boss, the rest of the employees would think you're an idiot. (This is how most of us that understand the UCMJ feel about this topic)

If what you said in the post was factual, and not slanderous or liable, then yes, the company would be taking away your right to free speech,

It doesn't matter if you and all of the employees at your job hate the boss and you talk smack about him everyday in the break room. YOU CAN'T POST IT PUBLICLY AND EXPECT NOTHING TO HAPPEN.

Actually, you can, in the private sector, a boss cannot punish you for having an opinion, even if it involves them, I have had this happen, where I made a comment about something at work, and was told by my manager to remove it or be fired, I refused, and challenged him to try and get away with interfering with my rights. It ended up with that manager being forced to apologize to me or lose his job for overstepping his authority. It should be no different for public sector jobs. opinions are different from actions. The issue with this case is not about if they guy had a right to a public opinion, but rather if the TPTB had a right to prevent him having a public opinion. It is similar to the right to refuse unsafe work in private industry in many ways, saying you would not follow a illegal order is not an action, but an opinion, and a rightful one at that.

I know it's a hard concept for you guys/gals that never served to understand, I'm trying to explain it in a way that makes sense. There is no conspracy, no agenda... the dude burned himself. Just like If you did the same at your job, you would get no sympathy from the other employees... just a look of "what's wrong with you?"

There is a conspiracy of sorts, I know some of the sources I am about to post can be considered weak, and the ability to verify statements may be impossible, but it does show some the possibility of some conspiracy. The evidence of a conspiracy does not need to be obvious for a conspiracy to be taking place.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Original source - Oath Keepers

patricksperry.wordpress.com...

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Right or wrong, he joined voluntarily and agreed to obey the rules that govern those in the military. He then chose to not obey and got the prescribed punishment as expected. The key here is he did all this willingly knowing fully what he was doing.

Beyond that?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
The biggest problem for most of the civilians on here is that when you're in the Military you respect RANK, I left the Corps as a Corporal, that means I had to respect the RANK of Sgt's and above. There have been PLENTY of times I've wanted to bounce Sgt's off of the bulkhead, Plenty of times I've wished they'd pop their chevrons off and "take it to the treeline" Did I hate them as human beings? Yes, did I ever let it get in the way of my professionalism? No, because Like a good Marine, I respected those Chevrons on their collar...not the man.

As a member of the Armed Forces, you respect the CIC, Commander In Chief. You're not respecting "The Man" whether it be Obama, Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Abe Lincoln etc... you respect his position because he currently holds "the office of the president"

I
Open thoes baby blues,
If soldiers don't have recourse and outlets of expression, well,
Perhaps you might understand it this way. Would you do what ever the MIC Lt Calli told you? I'm guessing yes.
Also remember Obama poomised that marine the wars would be over.
Also remember that is the LIE he got elected on.
Nixon stopped the war. Lincoln stoped a bullet.
Bush didn't stop a war. He got kicked out because of that .
Clinton, well he was a lover.


My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre - Similarto My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The My Lai Massacre 1] was the Vietnam War mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968, by United States ...

Do you think the punishments for these two men are equal?? You know Calli and Stein

Another strawman argument, #1 "lawfull order" learn what it is. #2 If you changed all of the "obama" to "president" would you still feel as passionate about this, #3 my position on whatever happened in a war prior to my birth has no bearing on the topic at hand.

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post 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?

So the question begs to be asked, what if this marine was ordered, by the president and chain of command to fire upon civilians in his own country at a political protest, or since you hate "libs" at say, an OWS protest, what would you say is the honourable thing to do then. Would his oath(s) mean he had to fire as ordered, or would his oath(s) mean he had to uphold the constitutional rights of the citizens he was ordered to fire upon?

That would be an "unlawful order", google it. (Not because I'm being an ass, but because Im replying to you on my DROID lol)

I am really interested to see your reply, if you can formulate one that is.

It's an unlawful order, look two lines up, this phone butchers posts.

Originally posted by Drezden

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.

Lawfull order, learn what it is...

I'm not addressing specific comments because a lot of people have said similar things and it is kind of a pain to gather all the usernames together.

I think that as a whole, good points are being made about in the civilian sector you can fight it if your boss tries to fire you for badmouthing them in a public place. And if it weren't for the things you signed in the military sector, that would probably be just as valid. But in the military sector, people sign away their ability to go on a public venue and speak out against the commander in chief. Is (or at least should) the ability to sign that away wrong based on the writs of our country? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'll stand neutral on that matter for the subject of this conversation. But the fact is these people signed them, either knowingly or out of ignorance for not reading the small print.

Now I'm pretty sure unlawful rules in a contract can invalidate the whole contract. The issue then becomes that people should be making a movement to change the military contract people have to sign to join the military. And there may even be people fighting for that.

But the bottom line is it was signed and is currently accepted by the law, even if its against it, right? I think its perfectly okay to take offense on that side of the situation. But as its written, the man did something wrong (and many military members in this thread are insisting that it was probably a pattern that lead up to it? I don't have the means to do the research on that end of it) and he got punished for it.

In the scope of the issue as presented in the original topic, as far as I understand it, the man got fired for breaking a contract he knowingly signed. Therefore, what happened strictly in the scope of the original topic was what should have happened. The greater issue, the lawfulness of the contract armed forces are required to sign, to me, is another topic.

Hopefully that made sense!

I was actually sacked from work a month ago for writing something on my fb about the company I worked for. Anyway, kinda offtopic, but this sort of behavior doesn't surprise me and is bound to get worse.

Originally posted by nimsu1987
I was actually sacked from work a month ago for writing something on my fb about the company I worked for. Anyway, kinda offtopic, but this sort of behavior doesn't surprise me and is bound to get worse.

Hi nim,
Sorry to hear that you got fired. I was always lucky. Some how I always found a better job if I got laid off. Yeah you even have to watch what you say to your friends and neighbors any more.
I hope Gary does well. I hope you do too.

It is a shame things have turned so sour here in the good old USA.

stay strong ljb

reply to post by mugenginga


Hi mug,
I think your post makes a lot of sense if the Admin wasn't so out touch with the people and the fighting folks. I don't think the Admin had much or anything to do with Gary's dismissal. There are plenty of head hunters just itching to take somebody, anybody down.
I have known some personally. It's not far from corporate life.
For sure, the Admin needs to get straight. And that is only going to happen by the people waking up and taking these demigods to task. And letting the military know we are behind them in that effort.
You never know what will happen if the SHTF and folks have not been nice to the Brave Ones.
cheers ljb

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

. #2 If you changed all of the "obama" to "president" would you still feel as passionate about this, #3 my position on whatever happened in a war prior to my birth has no bearing on the topic at hand.

#2 no Bush and Obama are both deplorable for America. They are the same dude with a two brimmed hat. They just switch it around to fool you.
#3 With age comes the wisdom, no wonder you don't get it yet.
You will look at it all a lot different when you finally do. You may like being someone else's misused tool but most do not.
You may not be totally incorrect but you are a little heartless in my opinion.
And the Administration less.
I think the Brave Ones need better support.
cheers ljb

I went in to this thread with a pre-conceived notion, was willing to read all the posts to change it, and exit this thread with the notion still somewhat intact. Military or not, the man dishonored his boss in public. It is grounds for dismissal.

The only thing I disagree with is that he should be discharged, period. He should not lose any benefits, because in civilian life, that would be illegal if he was already vested in a retirement plan, so the same rules should apply here.

He simply showed very poor judgement, especially being in the military. Irregardless of how right or wrong his motives were, you just do not dishonor your boss and company you work for in public, as you are basically saying that you do not want to work there anymore.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
#2 If you changed all of the "obama" to "president" would you still feel as passionate about this, #3 my position on whatever happened in a war prior to my birth has no bearing on the topic at hand.
#2 no Bush and Obama are both deplorable for America. They are the same dude with a two brimmed hat. They just switch it around to fool you.
#3 With age comes the wisdom, no wonder you don't get it yet.
You will look at it all a lot different when you finally do. You may like being someone else's misused tool but most do not.
You may not be totally incorrect but you are a little heartless in my opinion.
And the Administration less.
I think the Brave Ones need better support.
cheers ljb

Here's the thing ljb, you know nothing about me other than I don't agree with your position on this topic, the reason I don't agree with you isn't because we have opposing views, it's because I understand the reason why the Devildog got Ad-Sep'd , and you do not. (or you do, and you're trying to spin this to fit your agenda)

If you'd pay close attention you'll notice I haven't even given you my opinion on the topic, I've simply given you the facts so that YOU can make an informed opinion. It's akin to me telling you that 1+1=2 , and you arguing that it should be 3. It's not my OPINION that 1+1=2 , it's simply fact, a fact that I've faced a volley of attempted character assasinations by yourself and others to bring to light.

As far as my political views, you haven't been here long enough to see any of my old posts regarding my leanings. (I refuse to go into the political forums anymore, unless I'm troll bashing or exposing shills) I'm the LAST person on this board to feed into the 2 party system nonsense, to the contrary I fight tooth and nail to explain to people that it's US vs THEM and RIGHT & WRONG...not left and right... I usually start light by explaining that Obama & McCain had essentially the same corporate/banker financiers during the election, depending on the reaction I go from there. Unfortunately too many people these days are fed their Ideas from talking heads to use their own reason, Indoctrination is a bitch.

I did call that other user a liberal, but it's only because he was a neocon and I knew it would piss him off.

At the end of the day this issue has nothing to do with Nazi's , Communists , Obama , Bush, Jackbooted thugs , 1a suppression, thought police or newsspeak. It has to do with a Marine that couldn't follow the rules, the same rules that the rest of the vets on the board (with our wide spectrum of political views) managed to follow. If you want to find the conspiracy in it, do some due dilligence and try to find out who politicized this story in the 1st place.

Deny Ignorance
Sto Velox , Sto Validus

I feel sorry for him, but by the sounds of the article he was repeatedly warned to stop posting such vitriolic stuff about Obama by his officers. Like it or not, since Obama is commander in chief, it's the same as insubordination to a superior officer, for example, imagine repeatedly insulting your sergeant in a public manner. I don't think this issue is his opinions, but the fact he expressed them so publicly and wouldn't stopped when ordered.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

It's an unlawful order, look two lines up, this phone butchers posts.

Oh, but then he would be breaking his oath to obey the orders of the POTUS/CIC, the traitor.....
2nd line.

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post by EyesWideShut

 

It's an unlawful order, look two lines up, this phone butchers posts.

Oh, but then he would be breaking his oath to obey the orders of the POTUS/CIC, the traitor.....
2nd line.

I don't know if you honestly don't understand the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful one or if you're just attempting to be facetious (the whole calling the CIC a "traitor" thing.)

This is a lawful order- "Hey, Sgt. Stein, I want you to go take your men & push through past the bridge and assault that buliding, they have a sniper in place and he's directing mortar fire from the roof" (This Takes place in Afghanistan, a war that was authorized by Congress in a house vote of 420-1 and a senate vote of 98-0 on 9/14/2001)

This is an unlawful order- "Hey, Sgt. Stein, I want you to go take your men & push through past the bridge and assault that building, they have a sniper in place and he's directing mortar fire from the roof" (This takes place in Canada, where there is no war authorized)

This is an unlawful order- "Hey Sgt. Stein, I want you to go take your men & push through past the bridge and assault that building that has been confirmed to contain civilian non-combatants, school children and women)

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
this is so farcical
what could they hope to achieve here?
dude stated a view, one that is clearly held by many....
by kicking him out do they think they will eradicate this view?
they can't think that
they're not that dumb, are they?
yet they act it!
instead of addressing the wider issue here
it is back to the old hierarchic mainstays
"shut your mouth and obey your elders and betters"

right, anyone still wondering why the world is a mess?

Here's the thing , in the Military we have a set of guidelines that we operate by, it's called the UCMJ , or Uniform Code Of Military Justice, think of it as your job's "Employee Handbook" on steroids.

Now like most jobs there are areas in that document involving employment policies, practices and procedures, ethics, standards of conduct...etc

Like I've been trying to explain to civilians that have not yet read the UCMJ, but still feel the need to give their opinion on it.

"If you made a facebook page about your boss and he/she found out would you expect to keep your job?"

It would probably violate the "Ethics & Code of Conduct" section in your "Employee Handbook" Is that a violation of your 1st amendment rights? No, you are entitled to say whatever you want, It isn't illegal...but there may be repercussions involved.

Now, if you were terminated from your job for posting negative things about your boss on facebook, would you then try to accuse your company of trying to silence you and eradicate your view? Of course not, that's what happens when you get caught posting about your boss, the rest of the employees would think you're an idiot. (This is how most of us that understand the UCMJ feel about this topic)

It doesn't matter if you and all of the employees at your job hate the boss and you talk smack about him everyday in the break room. YOU CAN'T POST IT PUBLICLY AND EXPECT NOTHING TO HAPPEN.

I know it's a hard concept for you guys/gals that never served to understand, I'm trying to explain it in a way that makes sense. There is no conspracy, no agenda... the dude burned himself. Just like If you did the same at your job, you would get no sympathy from the other employees... just a look of "what's wrong with you?"

well, dirk, thannks for the condescension and the jumping to conclusions, but you're wasting your types.
see i realise that the military is 'different'.
i never said there was a conspiracy or an agenda
it seems highly likely to me that there are very many of both of these things
but that's totally irrelevant.

my boss encourages me to make fun of him, to pick up his mistakes, call him out on any bs
it is because we are two human beings working together for a common goal
and acting like The Boss Man is on some special level above anyone else
totally above reproach or criticism
is just such a patently ridiculous idea that i can't even come up with suitable snark for it.
okay so let's say i'm working for a less enlightened individual
some neanderthal throwback who still buys into this alpha male stodge
...one who reads the above sentence and fires me for it.
what has he just done? he has lost [potentially] one of his hardest workers.
does this magically make the words go away? no.
does it stop me thinking them? no.
does it perhaps make other members of the staff reflect on the uselessness of his position and the truth of what i am saying? wait yes, it does.
you can't shoot an idea.
so why fire it?
the only recourse for anyone with a brain is to take it on board, use that information.
if it is an isolated incident, if i am some troublemaking fool out to tarnish the reputation of a good businessman, that should be readily apparent. if not, stomping down on the individuals expressing a perfectly legitimate view that happens to contan the truth is only going to mean the truth will be expressed in other ways.
ways that, if you look at the history of oppression, tend to be far more sudden and violent
than if the ape in charge had had a little less pride in the first place.

I know it's a hard concept for you guys/gals that never served to understand, I'm trying to explain it in a way that makes sense.
i realise there are these rules in place and we are all expected to play by them.
this is just yet another news item that makes me think
perhaps it is time to stop taking these stupid games seriously.

This type of thing is similar to employers taking action on employees who bad mouth the company or make it seem in a bad light.

In this case it is simply an employee saying something bad about his boss(the top boss too!). We must remember that the President of the United States is also the Commander and Chief it the country's military.

reply to post by EyesWideShut

I did call that other user a liberal, but it's only because he was a neocon and I knew it would piss him off.

What!

I am a neocon......and like you said in your post here to that guy....YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME. HOw would you know even if I was?

What in the world made you think I was a neocon?! Please explain that one. YOU did insult me and since you admit it was just a ploy to get an emotional reaction from me (piss me off) I would like to know why you trolled me.

You are starting to look like the names you´re calling others. You dont simply state facts. You throw in your agenda into the mix. The facts aside, what do you think about this marine losing his pension? Prove you are one of us. I would like to quote it next time we come across eachother.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)

ROTFLMFAO!?!

EDIT:

This guy first called me a liberal amongst other things. Now he calls me a neocon. If there ever was an example to go along with the definition of trolling this is it. Enough of the insults, no?