Marine will fight discharge over Obama comments

[alp227]

Source: CNN

A Marine facing discharge over criticism of President Barack Obama on a Facebook page he administers will fight in military and civilian courts, his attorney said Tuesday.

A military board recommended last week that Sgt. Gary Stein be given an other-than-honorable discharge on grounds that he violated "good order and discipline" by calling Obama a liar and suggesting he would not follow some orders issued by the president, among other comments posted to his Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook page.

The board found he also violated rules limiting political conduct by service members.

"This is not just a First Amendment case," attorney Gary Kreep said on CNN Tuesday. "They violated their own rules, they violated their own procedures."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/us/marine-obama/index.html

[Fresh_Start]

1. lots of luck with that....he ignored orders from his chain of command

and that by itself should result in his discharge

[Silent3]

4. Since he's not officer rank...

...his free speech rights should be equal to, or nearly so, with some very narrow exceptions, any other US citizen. Calling the President a liar certainly shouldn't earn this guy a discharge.

On the other hand, explicitly saying that there are orders he wouldn't follow... well, there are such things as illegal orders, but if you're professing that there are perfectly legal orders you won't follow, and you're implicitly or explicitly encouraging rebellion among other members of the military, that I'd guess (not claiming any legal expertise here) might be where you'd get in a bit of trouble.

[atreides1]

7. No he's not a commissioned officer

But he is a non-commissioned officer, he has the responsibility to follow all rules and regulations of the USMC, as well as the orders of the officers appointed over him, which he swore he would do when he took his oath of enlistment.

Now, because of his personal political feelings,he's decided that he doesn't have to follows the orders of those officers.

The man wants something that no one in uniform should ever be allowed to have, the special ability to disobey an order at his own convenience.

[Silent3]

13. I'm curious what the orders were

Constitutionally speaking, can an enlisted person be ordered not to create certain types of Facebook pages, if that was what was ordered? If enlisted persons have free speech rights equivalent to civilian citizens, to what extent can military orders limit that freedom?

I certainly think this guy is being an asshole, but I'm willing to consider that he might be within Constitutionally-protected bounds of assholishness.

[denbot]

23. The military is subordinate to the executive branch of government.

Any idiot, whether a seaman recruit or a Fleet Admiral knows that they do not publicly disparage the commander in chief. That is un-military like conduct. Were you ever in the military? Did you decide to exercise you freedom of speech in boot camp ("Gee Petty Officer Hollman, I think you're an asshole&quot ? How did that work out for you?

[cali]

24. Yes. they sure as fuck can. You join the military, you follow their commands-

unless it's CLEARLY unlawful. Period. No ifs ands or buts.

Sorry.

[atreides1]

33. Ever been in the military?

Military personnel do not have free speech rights equivalent to a civilian, freedom of speech is limited by regulations, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Manuals of Courtsmartial.

[Silent3]

35. I know there are special rules...

...and that military life is hardly the same as civilian life, but non-officers have more freedom under the UCMJ than officers, and I'm only WONDERING OUT LOUD how that distinction applies here.

On general principle, not as a matter of law, my support for free speech and expression is very strong, and I only want minimal restrictions for things like libel, slander, and reckless endangerment (the old "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater exception). I think an enlisted man should be able to say whatever he wants about any politician, the President included, on his free time.

I'm just amazed at how out-for-blood people are in this thread. I think the guy is a big asshole, and the part about him saying there are orders he wouldn't obey is certainly suspect to me for his continued military career. You'd think from the tone of the responses I'm getting, however, that I'm praising the guy and gushing about how I want to have his children.

[greiner3]

12. "his free speech rights should be equal to, or nearly so, with some very narrow exceptions..."

From Wiki;

"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47), is the foundation of military law in the United States. It was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.""

Text of the actual articles he did/announce he will not follow;

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

890. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.


892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Article 88 states it only applies to commissioned officers but what the heck...


Furthermore, SOTUS has ruled that the Constitution, or parts of it, does NOT apply to members of the Armed Forces.

Your argument fails; sorry about that.

[Silent3]

15. It's not a matter of any "argument" of mine "failing"...

...I have no vested interest in standing up for this guy beyond being a strong advocate for free expression. Standing up for free expression is only really meaningful when you do it to protect expression that you don't like.

I know that there's a distinction made between enlisted persons and commissioned officers in the degree of free speech that they're allowed, and you did yourself agree that "Article 88 states it only applies to commissioned officers" even if you added, "but what the heck".

Historically I believe this distinction exists because of the simple practical consideration that it's probably better for morale to let enlisted people grumble a bit about life in general, including political matters, than it is to try to police the speech of so many military personnel. Another reason might be that often (although not lately) the lowest ranks in the military often include people who have been drafted, people who aren't willingly giving up their freedoms the way someone who chooses to be an officer does.

[Liber-AL]

20. There is no "Draft," there is no excuse!

Conscription went out decades ago. Where have you been?

"Another reason might be that often (although not lately) the lowest ranks in the military often include people who have been drafted, people who aren't willingly giving up their freedoms the way someone who chooses to be an officer does."

Article 88 applies to Commissioned Officers but most of the rest of the articles apply to all service members regardless of rank.

Look, this guy's behavior is not conducive to good order and discipline. His sticking around will only cause other closet bigots to come out and emulate him. Give 'em an inch and the whole thing could mushroom into something of National Security proportions.
We can do without that and we can do without PVT Stein! Good riddance!

[maxrandb]

21. In order to charge under Article 88, you have to have these Elements

Elements
1.That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
2.That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
3.That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
4.That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.
(Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
5.That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned

He is, however, likely in violation of Disobeying Order or Regulation and Disrespect Toward a Superior.

[Liber-AL]

25. Er...didn't I just say that art 88 applies

to commissioned officers only? There is no need to explain the elements to me...

But articles 89, 90, 92 and so on apply to ALL service members. I hope you aren't thinking that the elements of art 88 overlap the elements of the other articles on that page.

[maxrandb]

30. No

Just saying that ART 88 doesn't apply, but Disobeying an Order or Regulation certainly does.

I'm active duty, and have some UCMJ knowledge. Here is how I explain this to my family and friends.

If I say; "I'm Bob civilian, and I think the President blows"...I might be OK. I can also donate to campaigns, pass out literature, petition my government for redress, join a picket line, etc...as long as I participate in that activity as a "private" citizen.

If I say; "I'm Bob, active duty Naval Officer, and the President blows"...I'm in BIG trouble. I also cannot use my position, or rank in the military to associate my service with my partisan political activity. I can't march in a protest in uniform, pass out campaign literature in uniform, because in uniform, or when identifying myself as a member of the military, I am a representative of that military.

We have regulations and restrictions on partisan activity as a military member. Violate those regulations and you're suhject to prosecution under the UCMJ.

[Liber-AL]

36. Lets just look at the UCMJ articles..no need to

embellish. As a retired Military Policeman/ CID investigator, the UCMJ was my bible. I think I have the expertise to know a little bit about it, dontcha think?

[maxrandb]

37. You seem to have assumed that I disagtee with you

or am itching for an argument.

I'm simply sharing my experience and knowledge on a website. Folks that have never served are confused by the UCMJ. Hell, I've been a Legal Officer and represented folks at Administrative Boards, and it still confuses me sometime.

I think we're both saying the same thing. The guy isn't covered by ART 88, but is covered by a shit-ton of other stuff.

No reason to have a pissing contest about it.

Have a great Navy Day!

[Liber-AL]

38. Agreed... We are on the same side.

Have a great Army day!

[maxrandb]

19. It's not only that. I have some experience with the UCMJ

Article 88 does not apply in this case, as he is not a commissioned officer.

However, there are rules and regulations regarding the political speech of members of the Armed Forces. I can say anything I want, within reason, as "citizen Bob", but as soon as I engage in political activity as a "member of the Armed Forces", I'd be in serious trouble. We are not allowed to participate in partisan activity, protests, etc. in uniform, but we can in civilian clothes. As soon as I put my uniform on, or identify myself as a Marine, Sailor, Soldier or Airman, my political activity becomes limited based on the regulations.

Those regulations are ORDERS! Disobeying a regulation is the same as disobeying an order.

I don't know all the facts of this case, but from what I've read, he is in violation of

- Failure to obey order or regulation

- Conduct unbecoming a non-commissioned officer

In addition, it's possible to make a case for Provoking Speech or Gestures, and Disrespect to a Superior.

Enlisted are different than Officers. They take a different oath. They swear/affirm to "follow the orders of the President of the United States and the order of the officers appointed over me". There is no mention of the President in the Officers oath.

and...one does not need to be in uniform to be a "superior". Whether this guy (I will no longer refer to him as a Marine) likes it or not, the President is his Commander-in-Chief and IS in his chain of command.

In my experience, this country, the Marines and the entire Armed Forces are BETTER OFF WITH THIS ASS-HAT discharged from service.

[BeGoodDoGood]

28. Article 88

Ouch.

I used to violate that article all the time when Reagan was president. What a POS he was.

Walt

[Kelvin Mace]

18. Seems like insubordination

case closed.

His comments are undermining the order and discipline of the USMC. His assertion that Obama is not the president is demonstrably false.

[MysticLynx]

31. I think the final straw was

1.) refusing to remove the 'armed forces' part from the facebook page name/title.
2.) Calling the CIC an enemy of the American people.

[Renew Deal]

2. It sounds like the military did the right thing

He couldn't say that kind of stuff about his boss if he worked at a gas station. There is no way he can say it as a marine.

[Kolesar]

10. Hope he knows better in his next job

...at a gas station.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Stein has disgraced the Corps with his lack of discipline, it's time for him to go.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

[donquijoterocket]

17. disgraced

The Corps and himself. This was a most serious breach of both military and personal discipline.Not exactly the sort of person one wants watching their 6 in a combat situation. A full out dishonorable discharge is called for although he might luck out and get a less than honorable, somewhat less debilitating to ones after military life but not by much.He's lucky not to pull time in the brig somewhere on top of reduction, forfeiture, and the bad paper.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. My first thought in these matters is ...

In what world is it okay to say stupid stuff about your boss and it be okay?

Then, I saw he's a teapartier, so I ask what about personal responsibility? As a citizen, you have a right to Free Speech; as a soldier, you do not. So, if you feel that strongly about your Free Speech rights, then why are you fighting the discharge? You spoke and your speech has consequences.

But I suspect that even if upheld, this guy's military career is done.

[alp227]

6. Next career: Professional right wing whiner on Fox News

who projects his victim mentality on liberals.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Yep ... n/t

[W T F]

9. If he can make this a First Amendment issue and pull it off, that's good news for Bradley Maning

[groundloop]

11. Misleading headline, should read: Marine discharged over claims he will refuse to follow orders

This goes way beyond comments about the President. When a soldier tells the public he'll refuse to follow lawful orders he deserves (and needs) to be expelled from the service.

[nanabugg]

14. These people hate Obama so much they don't care if they tear the moral fiber

of the country or the military code to shreds. Folks, this hate has us reaping the whirlwind! Remember how they treated conscientious objectors and flag burners. I think this is much worse but he will be regarded as a hero among the warmongers who in the past would have asked for execution had not Obama been President.

[Typical NYC Lib]

22. Asshole should be ashamed of himself

"Less-than-honorable" discharge? How about being shot out of a cannon like they'd have done with him 100 years ago?

[Tom Ripley]

16. "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"

[sendero]

26. LOL..

.. fight all you want moron, this is open and shut.

[Daniel537]

27. That's ok, now he can become another "victime of the left" on Fix News. n/t

[marble falls]

29. This is not a first admendment issue ......

the last thing I signed before swearing in when I enlisted was a waiver of my Constitutional rights submitting myself to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There is an issue of insubordination here, a serious thing to be guilty of in the military. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This is not an endorsing of crimes against humanity or war crimes, but a reminder of the obligation one voluntarily assumed at induction.

[Myrina]

32. They should ask that dipshit one question:

"What, sir, would you have recommended be done if one of your fellow Sargeants did the same thing with George W Bush was CIC?"
And if his answer is "toss him out", case closed, your ass is out of the Military, son.

[Bombero1956]

34. Are you kidding me?

How in the hell does this clown even think he's more knowledgeable than his superior officers and the President? He's basically saying he's a better judge of what constitutes a lawful order than those in leadership above him. Toss him out!!