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

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by hapablab

wow I didn't know that, I thought while you serve under no circumstances can you do that, regardless if you show your rank or not.

Why do you think I go by the moniker of "beezzer"?

I see lol.

reply to post by hapablab


of course, nothing's black and white ... and that line grays even further depending upon the severity of ones actions and or accusations made.

In this case I'd say it's most likely due to the fact that he attached his rank, status and service to his FB account and postings, as opposed to his mere dislike for the administration's practices and policies.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

I thought this was a FB posting?

Many service folks use FB to keep in touch with old units, other people we meet along the way.

I posted "PCSing again" and that's about it. Birthdays, anniversaries, weddings. But no political talk.

In the past I have written articles that have used my real name. These though, I sent to my CO first to get approval. Once he says okay, them I'm golden. As a matter of fact, I've never been told "no, don't write this".

reply to post by cerebralassassins


If the marine is prohibited from voicing his political beliefs then Obama can expect no votes from the military come November!

Look at it this way....

Everyday someone gets fired for posting remarks on social networking sites about the company they work for or their boss. I don't see this as being any different. They don't call the POTUS "Commander in Chief" for nothing.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


oh wow, thank you the explanation, I use to live on an Army Base but I wasn't in the Army my husband was, I knew of a lot of rules but I thought it was a cut and dry and once you become property of the Gov you can get in trouble saying anything against them in or out of uniform. A little unrelated story, once I wore the PE uniform and a pair of sandals which I didn't know at the time was a big no no and I was approached in a store off base by two soldiers I am assuming were Sgt's screaming "What is your name and rank soldier, then when they realized I wasn't in the Army they started yelling who is your husband, what is his name, they were rough and loud scared the daylights outta me I didn't tell them anything I just looked and bolted I ran for dear life lmao. My husband didn't know either, he was in the field for 2 weeks. they may have been kidding but who knows they looked serious. I was young and silly, I would never do that now. I loved living on the base though.

This is ironic how the fiefs love to joust it out among themselves. This Marine made an oath to defend the Constitution of America, and under the UCMJ has voiced his opinion against tyranny, and has Americans telling him to shut up.

Now the President, swore an oath to defend the United States against tyranny, and because we the U.S. are still in "war time theatre" the President can do just that. However, he chooses to be tyranical and use his power to keep giving it away to the U.N. and himself.


See any irony their folks.Get out of that little provbial box that you keep yourself in, and back this man.

Don't forget about former Marine General Smedley Butler who said, "war is a racket."

If I put on the uniform, defended my country and all it holds dear with my very life... Then I will say what the hell I want to say.. Period....

Originally posted by pez1975
Good he deserves what he gets and probably more imo. 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.

edit on 22-3-2012 by pez1975 because: (no reason given)

Benedict Arnold deserves NO respect.

reply to post by cerebralassassins


Service members can voice their opinion while not in uniform.

This may actually be a game changer in the military court system, if he fights it.

We'll see how the JAG interprets the Regs.

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.

Actually the President does take that oath.

Secondly the military is not taking his rights away from him, nor anyone else. Before you join up you sign a contract. That contract contains the terms of enlistment as well as explaining the restrictions placed on members of the military, including speech.

By signing that contract they are freely agreeing to the terms, which includes a restriction on their speech / activities. If they dont like the terms, then dont sign on the dotted line.

There is an article in the UCMJ that deals specifically with Contemptuous words - UCMJ Article 88 as well as UCMJ - Article 89. Also in UCMJ - Article 91

The Marine signed on the dotted line so it shouldn't be a surprise to him that the military is investigating his comments.

It is paramount that our military has civilian leadership. Its paramount that our civilian government be in charge and responsible for the Nation, not the military.

ETA - Oath of Enlistment

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

I am also curious about the background that was laid out in the article. It states the Marine was spoken to about his activities. The part im curious about addresses the use of government computers. I got the impression that the Marine may have made some posts while using government property. I am thinking thats the base on how this will play out. If he used the computer at work, then he would be making public political comments while in uniform as well as engaging in political activities while on the job.

If any military members are around please chime in. Also if I got my info wrong let me know.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by cerebralassassins

 

Service members can voice their opinion while not in uniform.

This may actually be a game changer in the military court system, if he fights it.

We'll see how the JAG interprets the Regs.

Indeed , i assume Jag has already a case file and even before this broke as news his social and along with gmail, yahoo aol accounts have all been read by the grey's.

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.

I guess if you serve a country you serve it for its Good and Bad points, its ethical and non ethical points, and as pointed out earlier, you cannot attach your rank and express your political views while in the military, its simply a No No rule. I guess this is why you always read " Former General says or quotes " etc.etc. , so if it applies to the top brass then the lower brass must follow. That's how simple things are in the military and there is no need to twist and turn an obvious mistake made by this individual. Keep in mind, i don't what the guy to hang or loose his benefits but i would rather see him fully understand and comprehend the workings as a collective structure rather than going rogue and using his position to push a personal ideology or view by using the weight of a collective structure to promote what obviously has blown out of proportion. This is why they say " be careful what you type or post in social networks it can and will land you in the hot seat if your not careful.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.

Actually the President does take that oath.

Secondly the military is not taking hos rights away from him, nor anyone else. Before you join up you sign a contract. That contract contains the terms of enlistment as well as explaining the restrictions placed on members of the military, including speech.

By signing that contract they are freely agreeing to the terms, which includes a restriction on their speech / activities. If they dont like the terms, then dont sign on the dotted line.









There is an article in the UCMJ that deals specifically with Contemptuous words - UCMJ Article 88 as well as UCMJ - Article 89. Also in UCMJ - Article 91

The Marine signed on the dotted line so it shouldn't be a surprise to him that the military is investigating his comments.

It is paramount that our military has civilian leadership. Its paramount that our civilian government be in charge and responsible for the Nation, not the military.

ETA - Oath of Enlistment

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

edit on 22-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I have 2 arguments with your synopsis: First, these wars since 2003 have forced our service members to re-enlist forcefully, and with out their consent, as the Military Industrial Complex learned there last lesson, and that was not to have a forced "draft."

Secondly, how many "dotted lines" have you signed, or for that fact, the American public-government signed that was not willfully abided by. Such as bankruptcy, home foreclosures, student aid, finacial aid, welfare, and local housing development by-laws.

Easy, to be hypocritical of some-one, without taking a good long look in the mirror, is it not?

reply to post by Xcathdra


That's right on all counts. We give up our rights to protect the rights of others.

It doesn't stop the chatter where the boots hit the ground, but when I was in there was no internet so a lot easier to control, lol...

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by cerebralassassins

 

If the marine is prohibited from voicing his political beliefs then Obama can expect no votes from the military come November!

I think we should define the purpose of a President, he has all the burden of making the real big decisions, usually life or death ones, that in my opinion is no small task and to make clear one must be made of thick skin to hold such a position. That escalates even further when referencing ("thick skin"), when it involves military decisions, as those who draw up the plans and those who vote for them know all to well how many body bags will be needed to execute such plans. It truly takes a special breed of humans to reach that level.

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

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 ?

No sir that is incorrect - 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.

It is a thin line, in that this individal is a Marine (Enlisted) but also a citizen. I have not seen the FB page but if he included his rank and status as a Marine to recruit and organize a partisan group he was wrong.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
I have 2 arguments with your synopsis: First, these wars since 2003 have forced our service members to re-enlist forcefully, and with out their consent, as the Military Industrial Complex learned there last lesson, and that was not to have a forced "draft."

The term is called stop-loss, which allows their continued deployment. Another thing to consider is the fact that when you go active duty, you are obligated to serve so many years. Whats often overlooked is the fact that after that active duty period, the person is moved into the
IRR - Individual Ready Reserve

It allows the military to reactivate those in the IRR and deploy them where needed. Initiating a stop-loss is no different that reactivating people in the IRR.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Secondly, how many "dotted lines" have you signed, or for that fact, the American public-government signed that was not willfully abided by. Such as bankruptcy, home foreclosures, student aid, finacial aid, welfare, and local housing development by-laws.

Respectfully thats comparing apples to dogs.

The argument about dotted lines reminds me of an old saying -

Caveat emptor - May the buyer beware, which is to say read the fine print before signing. Failure to read all the details is no ones fault but the person who failed to read it.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Easy, to be hypocritical of some-one, without taking a good long look in the mirror, is it not?

edit on 22-3-2012 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)

Its not hypocritical at all. At some point people are going to have to take personal responsibility for their words / actions. People in this country have a knack for blaming anyone and everyone for their own personal mistake.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

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 ?

No sir that is incorrect - 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.

It is a thin line, in that this individal is a Marine (Enlisted) but also a citizen. I have not seen the FB page but if he included his rank and status as a Marine to recruit and organize a partisan group he was wrong.

I see your point but as you noted and as USA Today posted on their site

Camp Pendleton U.S. Marine Gary Stein started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party to encourage fellow servicemembers to exercise their free speech rights.

I believe this is the page in question
www.facebook.com...

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

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 ?

No sir that is incorrect - 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.

It is a thin line, in that this individal is a Marine (Enlisted) but also a citizen. I have not seen the FB page but if he included his rank and status as a Marine to recruit and organize a partisan group he was wrong.

I don't think it was the fact he voiced his opinion that got him into trouble. I dont think it was his comments about the NDAA that got him in trouble.

I think it was the manner he went about doing it that got him in trouble.