Facebook Marine to Be Discharged

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Article

Follow up to a thread from a few weeks ago.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Marine Corps on Wednesday notified a sergeant who has been openly critical of President Barack Obama that he is violating Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities and that he faces dismissal.

Camp Pendleton Marine Sgt. Gary Stein started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights. He declared a few weeks ago that he would not follow the unlawful orders of the commander in chief. Stein also criticized Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for his comments on Syria.

Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he did nothing wrong and planned to fight the charges. He had applied to extend his service, which was set to expire in a few months.

"I'm completely shocked that this is happening," he said. "I've done nothing wrong. I've only stated what our oath states that I will defend the constitution and that I will not follow unlawful orders. If that's a crime, what is America coming to?"

The Marine Corps said in a statement Wednesday that Stein's commanding officer ordered a preliminary inquiry on March 8 after receiving allegations that Stein posted political statements about Obama on Facebook in violation of the Pentagon's directives.

"After reviewing the findings of the preliminary inquiry, the commander decided to address the allegations through administrative action," the Corps said.

Stein said in addition to being discharged, he would have his rank reduced to lance corporal if he is proven to be in violation of the rules. He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego on Wednesday and given a desk job with no access to computers.

I guess they decided he made to many political waves and wasn't worth the trouble he was trying to bring down on their doorstep.

**rubiksnoob**

Do you think he might possibly be in the right? It would seem that in order to determine whether he acted unlawfully, they would have to conduct an investigation into the legality of the orders he claimed to be refusing to follow.

**Ahtman**

rubiksnoob wrote:Do you think he might possibly be in the right? It would seem that in order to determine whether he acted unlawfully, they would have to conduct an investigation into the legality of the orders he claimed to be refusing to follow.

You don't have to do anything illegal to get fired from any job. As it is, they have decided not renew his contract, which isn't really the same as being fired, but still has the same effect. Perhaps they decided he wasn't smart enough to be in the Marines becuase he couldn't foresee that making a public website where he makes unflattering statements about his boss would lead to political problems for the Marines. They have other things to worry about and don't need distractions like this bogging them down.

**Manchu**

Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan. In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

source

**Mr Hyena**

Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan. In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

Regardless of breaking military law...I agree with him.

**Frazzled**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan. In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

Regardless of breaking military law...I agree with him.

He's actually stating he would FOLLOW THE LAW. Military forces are prohibited from obeying unlawful orders. The ones above, my dear friends, are just that.

**hotsauceman1**

No offense but if you go into service you may be forced to do things you dont want to. Isnt the average service 20 yrs?(im not sure TBH) Thats about 3 presidents. They cant always be who you want them to be SIr. Deal with it.

**Ahtman**

No unlawful order has been given for him to bravely stand up against. He is a blowhard that is traded on his military status to publicly complain about the Commander-In-Chief, which caused consternation within the Corp. You also have to remember that he eventually elaborated on his initial statement which was just that he wouldn't follow orders from the President and when he got called on it he changed it to unlawful orders. Most people don't get fired/released/laid off becuase of criminal activity.

We don't know what the investigation found or what it was focusing on, and the only thing we really have to go on is his assertion that he looked it up and was sure he wasn't breaking the law. Last I checked though he wasn't a lawyer or in JAG so I'm not sure how much his opinion on his legal status is worth. He isn't being arrested or given a dishonorable discharge and he isn't being charged with any criminal offenses. He had the choice of being a political pundit and being a Marine and he decided he wanted to be a political pundit. The Corp just decided that it isn't worth renewing his contract, and they probably are right, and they are well within their rights to do so. He may not have done anything illegal, but neither have they.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:No unlawful order has been given for him to bravely stand up against. He is a blowhard that is traded on his military status to publicly complain about the Commander-In-Chief, which caused consternation within the Corp. You also have to remember that he eventually elaborated on his initial statement which was just that he wouldn't follow orders from the President and when he got called on it he changed it to unlawful orders. Most people don't get fired/released/laid off becuase of criminal activity.

We don't know what the investigation found or what it was focusing on, and the only thing we really have to go on is his assertion that he looked it up and was sure he wasn't breaking the law. Last I checked though he wasn't a lawyer or in JAG so I'm not sure how much his opinion on his legal status is worth. He isn't being arrested or given a dishonorable discharge and he isn't being charged with any criminal offenses. He had the choice of being a political pundit and being a Marine and he decided he wanted to be a political pundit. The Corp just decided that it isn't worth renewing his contract, and they probably are right, and they are well within their rights to do so. He may not have done anything illegal, but neither have they.

Agreed on all points.

**Ouze**

hotsauceman1 wrote:No offense but if you go into service you may be forced to do things you dont want to. Isnt the average service 20 yrs?(im not sure TBH) Thats about 3 presidents. They cant always be who you want them to be SIr. Deal with it.

Well said - you salute the office, not the man.

From a different article:

Sgt. Gary Stein, 26, a nine-year veteran, put comments on a Facebook page called the Armed Forces Tea Party page that said he would not follow unlawful orders from President Obama such as ordering the killing of Americans or taking guns away from Americans.

That reminds me of the time I got fired from my job by posting on a public Facebook page that I wouldn't obey my boss if he ordered me to rape a baby. Sure, he never actually asked me to do anything like that, but who knows what he might have asked in the future? I wouldn't want people to to think I might... hypothetically... do stuff like that.

Anyway my free speech rights were also totally stomped on when I lost my job, because we all know, freedom of speech actually means freedom from consequences.

**Luco**

Ahtman wrote: Last I checked though he wasn't a lawyer or in JAG so I'm not sure how much his opinion on his legal status is worth.

I think its rather telling that unless you end up in law school you cant even tell if you're breaking the law or not.

**Ahtman**

Luco wrote:
Ahtman wrote: Last I checked though he wasn't a lawyer or in JAG so I'm not sure how much his opinion on his legal status is worth.

I think its rather telling that unless you end up in law school you cant even tell if you're breaking the law or not.

You actually often can, but there are finer points that sometimes are overlooked. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that he overlooked something, or assumed something meant something other than it did. None of the info is hidden, it just takes a long time to learn all the ins and outs of it, and if you don't study it professionally it is easy to make simple errors. Even lawyers can miss things and it is their day to day job. He also could be right that he didn't break any law. Not that it matters anyway becuase he isn't being charged with anything, so legal and illegal don't really factor into it.

This of course is also not taking into account the old adage about a lawyer representing himself has a fool for a client. He should have gone to an outside counsel and asked them to look into it if he was that concerned.

**Manchu**

Ouze makes a good point that bears making more explicitly. If I go around saying that I won't ever let my boss tell me to kick puppies then people might get the impression that my boss wants me to kick puppies. Sgt. Stein was basically accusing the President of conspiring to illegal actions in a backhanded sort of way. It's pretty clearly insubordination. You might call it "armchair insubordination," as its hypothetical in substance.

**hotsauceman1**

Although i have to ask this. How bad would it have been if he gave obama praise. I mean political statments are not allowed. But i have to wonder.

**Manchu**

You're not allowed to support political candidates in your capacity as a soldier. You can always say "the high ups are doing a fine job." Praising Obama as a commander-in-chief is perfectly acceptable outside the scope of a political campaign. Yeah, that's muddy water but it really has no bearing on the instant case. You can't say that General So-And-So is a prick in the context of politics or otherwise. And Obama is General So-And-So's boss so why would you think it's any different with him? Sgt Stein claims a certain affection for his oath but seems to forget that in the direct chain of military command, the President is at the top.

**DeadlySquirrel**

By putting your name on that dotted line, you give away your individual rights for X number of years. He had no right to come out in public about this, because his right to free speech had been suspended pending discharge from the armed forces.

However, he is right in that he shouldn't follow illegal orders. He just shouldn't of made it public.

**Manchu**

Sure, sure: but the question remains, why mouth off about not following illegal orders if you haven't been given any? You'd just be implying that you think it's likely you will be given illegal orders. And that's tantamount to calling the President a criminal.

**DeadlySquirrel**

Well, in the words of Nixon:

"It's not illegal when the President does it."

**Manchu**

What do you mean?

**DeadlySquirrel**

I doubt Obama thinks that what he's doing is illegal, or that he WILL do anything illegal.

**Amaya**

hotsauceman1 wrote:No offense but if you go into service you may be forced to do things you dont want to. Isnt the average service 20 yrs?(im not sure TBH) Thats about 3 presidents. They cant always be who you want them to be SIr. Deal with it.

If you don't know anything about the most basic aspects of military life, do not post as if you do.

The average service time differs between the branches and would probably, on average be closer to an 8-12 year range. 20 years is the mininum time in service to receive retirement benefits. I assume that Slr is a typo and meant to be 'sir'. A sergeant is not a commissioned officer and outside of a billet as USMC Drill Instructor is never referred to as 'sir'.

Not particularly surprised that the Sgt in question is being discharged.

**Ouze**

I think Obama is unique suited to knowing the prospective legality of what he might (or might not) with his educational background. However, that's an aside anyway: for any questions that any president is unclear on the legality therein, that's what the Justice Department are for: to advise on the prospective legality of things.*

*and to smuggle guns into Mexico

**mattyrm**

rubiksnoob wrote:Do you think he might possibly be in the right?

He may well be, but its irrelevant old chap.

For example, much of what he says might be true, and I'm not a great fan of Obama, but you take the oath and you sign on the dotted line, and that's you good to go. If you "refuse to follow the order of the CIC" then your massively in the wrong, its black and white. You sign on the dotted line, they invade somewhere you don't like, tough gak you go anyway. You shoulda read your contract.

If you want freedom of speech, don't join the fething armed forces.

As they say in the armed forces themselves, it ain't a fething democracy.

Its clearly politically motivated anyway! He is a sprog soldier (been in 9 years) which means he joined up AFTER we invaded Afghanistan! Presumably he didn't mind following orders when Bush was in charge.

The guys a tit. If he was in my company Id force him over the Afghanistan at gunpoint and make him walk 30 yards in front of my company with clown shoes on.

**Orlanth**

Dissidents get mine clearing duties eh.

You sure you didn't serve in the Soviet marines matty?

**mattyrm**

Orlanth wrote:Dissidents get mine clearing duties eh.

You sure you didn't serve in the Soviet marines matty?

Hah, no mate. It was the Royal ones alright.

Seriously, I went all over in my ten, If I suddenly decided I didn't WANT to follow orders, what fething right did I have? If I said "Oh sorry sir, I'm not going to "Sierra Leone/Iraq/Afghanistan/Northern Ireland.. I've decided I don't like the Prime Minister" I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, and rightly so.

I hated Tony Blair, I didn't whinge about going to Iraq twice. If you want to play politics, I'm sorry, but you don't join the military. We dont get conscripted. We go in with both eyes open, if you don't fancy that the government might want to get their moneys worth out of you and send you to a war then tough gak as far as im concerned.

As I said, I dont like Obama, but taking action on such things is for civvies. The fether has no excuse.

**hotsauceman1**

Amaya wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:No offense but if you go into service you may be forced to do things you dont want to. Isnt the average service 20 yrs?(im not sure TBH) Thats about 3 presidents. They cant always be who you want them to be sir. Deal with it.

If you don't know anything about the most basic aspects of military life, do not post as if you do.

The average service time differs between the branches and would probably, on average be closer to an 8-12 year range. 20 years is the mininum time in service to receive retirement benefits. I assume that Slr is a typo and meant to be 'sir'. A sergeant is not a commissioned officer and outside of a billet as USMC Drill Instructor is never referred to as 'sir'.

Not particularly surprised that the Sgt in question is being discharged.

Ok first. I obviously knew 20 fit in there somewhere. Second. I used Sir in the non military sir. I always refer to people whos name i do now know as sir. to be polite. just as i refer to ladies as ma,am. to be polite and respectful

**Manchu**

I'm going to have to echo Frazzled here: Matty definitely has it right.

**mattyrm**

Two rights in a day!

If I hadn't stupidly duplicated a thread id be having a good afternoon.

**DeadlySquirrel**

mattyrm wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Dissidents get mine clearing duties eh.

You sure you didn't serve in the Soviet marines matty?

Seriously, I went all over in my ten, If I suddenly decided I didn't WANT to follow orders, what fething right did I have? If I said "Oh sorry sir, I'm not going to "Sierra Leone/Iraq/Afghanistan/Northern Ireland.. I've decided I don't like the Prime Minister" I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, and rightly so.

Actually, the contract you sign explicitly states you have the right to refuse an order you think is illegal... And that if you follow an order that is illegal, you are accountable for your actions. "I was just following orders" is no longer an excuse.

**Ahtman**

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Actually, the contract you sign explicitly states you have the right to refuse an order you think is illegal... And that if you follow an order that is illegal, you are accountable for your actions. "I was just following orders" is no longer an excuse.

Who was given an unlawful order in this scenario? Oh that is right, no one.

What is considered an unlawful order can be pretty complicated, but refusing to go on tour becuase you don't like the Commander isn't one of them.