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.

**mattyrm**

Ahtman wrote:
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.

Exactly.

"Shoot that fething toddler off his trike Matty!" constitutes an illegal order.

"Deploy to Afghanistan, and do the job what we have paid you for" ... doesn't.

**DeadlySquirrel**

Never said that: all I said was he does have the right to refuse an illegal order, not that he had received one.

**mattyrm**

Oh ok, well then yes of course he does, I agree wholeheartedly.

But what was the point in posting it in this thread?

**DeadlySquirrel**

Read what I quoted you saying, where you said you can't refuse orders.

**mattyrm**

Yes and I specifically said orders that were "Matty go to Iraq/Northern Ireland/Sierra Leone"

Not "Matty go rape some babies"

It's a moot point cos either way your in the gak regardless, even if the order you ignore IS illegal, your still off to court if your Brigade Commander has given you it and you tell him to feth off.

**DeadlySquirrel**

True, true.

**dogma**

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Well, in the words of Nixon:

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

There's more truth to this statement than you might realize.

The President can do things that are illegal, and have them found illegal, but any challenge to a Presidential action (short of committing a physical crime himself, which isn't likely) is going to be made by either Congress, or the Supreme Court.

In the case of Congress, it isn't so much about crime as finding a politically expedient reason to remove the President from office.

In the case of the Supreme Court, good luck getting a decision rendered before a Presidential term is up.

The net effect is that the President can do just about anything he wants insofar as he can get Congress (and, in some situations, the military) to go along with it. And that's before we start talking about the general impetus to protect the office, rather than pursue matters of personal justice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Its still a pretty good excuse outside those incidents in which the offense is especially egregious.

Individual soldiers aren't likely to be legal experts.

**AustonT**

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.

Meh, doing stuff you don't want to do and refusing an unlawful order are on different orders of magnitude. I met a full bird who was about a month away from his star who told a class full of cadets that being a soldier and being a man(or woman) of principle are not mutually exclusive. He proceeded to weave a tale about refusing an unlawful order from a CO during the invasion of Iraq. This dude was faced with no such moral dilemma and put himself in a position to be barred from reenlistment lest he cause MORE bad PR for the USMC, like they need his fething help lately.

**Ouze**

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Never said that: all I said was he does have the right to refuse an illegal order, not that he had received one.

In response, here is a quote from Sebster, on an unrelated thread that nonetheless address this nicely:

sebster wrote:It's just as odd, as with all the others, that he's willing to go so far to defend his right to refuse a law that he's been specifically exempted from, but what really stands out is his declaration that he's willing to die over the matter. Despite the fact that no-one is at all interesting in killing him, or has even thought of doing it. Just like no-one has even considered putting Warren in jail.

The pattern becomes clear - they're playing make believe. Exciting games where they are heroic martyrs battling for a noble cause, and the fact that there is no-one martyring them or forcing them to do anything hasn't stopped them for one second from playing such an exciting game. And I can't really blame them, when I was a small child I used to run around the backyard, hacking up orcs and blasting Russians, and the fact that there were no orcs and no Russians in my backyard never bothered me one bit, as long as I got to think of myself as the hero. Indeed, if I ever learnt how scary real orcs and real Russian invasions were, the game would have stopped being fun very quickly.

Warren, Colson and Morris are all running about in their parent's backyards, playing pretend games where they are heroic martyrs battling against horrible oppression. Does it matter that the oppression is entirely in their own heads? Well, it probably should, because they're grown men and there's a country to run.

**Manchu**

That is a nice fit. Thanks for digging it up.

**Ouze**

The Marine in question's case has been updated. They have recommended he get the boot, and that he get a "less than honorable" discharge (I've never heard of that, is that different than dishonorable?).

The story is here.

Military board: Tea Party Marine who slammed Obama on Facebook should be dismissed
U.S. Marine Gary Stein, who has been criticizing Barack Obama on his Facebook page, says he has the right to his opinion like every American.

By Associated Press

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. -- A Marine who criticized President Barack Obama on his Facebook page has committed misconduct and should be dismissed, a military board recommended late Thursday.
The Marine Corps administrative board made the decision after a daylong hearing at Camp Pendleton for Sgt. Gary Stein.

The board also recommended that Stein be given an other-then-honorable discharge. That would mean Stein would lose his benefits and would not be allowed on any military base.
The board's recommendations go to a general who will either accept or deny them. If the general disagrees with the board, the case could go to the secretary of the Navy.

Stein's lawyers argued that the 9-year Marine, whose service was to end in four months, was expressing his personal views and exercising his First Amendment rights.
"We're truly surprised and disappointed but it was an honor to fight for a hero like Sgt. Stein and every other Marine's right to speak freely," Stein's defense attorney Marine Capt. James Baehr said.

Free speech groups line up to back Tea Party Marine

Stein addressed board members during Thursday's hearing, telling them he loved the Marine Corps and wanted to re-enlist, Baehr said. During the hearing, the prosecutor, Capt. John Torresala, said Stein went as far as superimposing images of Obama's face on a poster for the movie "Jackass." Torresala argued that Stein's behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy that limits the free speech rights of service members, and said he should be dismissed after ignoring warnings from his superiors about his postings.

The government submitted screen grabs of Stein's postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of Obama on the "Jackass" movie poster. Stein also superimposed Obama's image on a poster for "The Incredibles" movie that he changed to "The Horribles," the prosecutor said.

Security clearance removed

Torresala also said anti-Obama comments by Stein that were posted on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists were prejudicial to good order and discipline, and could have influenced junior Marines. Stein's security clearance was taken away and he has no future in the Marine Corps because he can't do his job without that clearance, Torresala said. "The Marine Corps community views the command's lack of action as some kind of knock on good order and discipline," Torresala said. "Our own people are questioning why this Marine is not being held accountable." Baehr said during the hearing that prosecutors were trying to dredge up any damaging information they could against Stein. "There is no basis in this case," Baehr said. "Sgt. Stein has broken no law."
Baehr expressed after the hearing that he hoped that the recommendation would be rejected by the general, saying the case will go forward. "The issues are too important for this to end today," he said.

The military has had a policy since the Civil War of limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the commander in chief. Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials.

'Dangerous'

Backed by a team of lawyers and congressmen, Stein has said he is fighting for his constitutional rights and should be allowed to stay in the military. His lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union contend his views are protected by the First Amendment. "Think about how dangerous this could be if the U.S. government can prosecute you for something you say on your private Facebook page," Baehr said. Stein has said his opinions are his own and has put a disclaimer on his Facebook page saying so. His attorneys argued service members have a right to voice their opinions as long as they do not appear to be presenting their views as being endorsed by the military. They say the Pentagon policy is vague and military officials do not understand it.

The Marine Corps has said it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow orders from Obama and later clarified that statement saying he would not follow unlawful orders. Stein could face other-than-honorable discharge while seeing his rank reduced to lance corporal and losing his benefits. The nine-year veteran was set to finish his service in four months.

Desk job

He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego last month and given a desk job with no access to computers. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a former Marine, wrote a letter to Stein's commanding officer stating the sergeant should not face dismissal for an opinion shared by a majority of Marines. Hunter said he was referring to Stein's statement that he would not obey unlawful orders. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also expressed support for Stein. Stein said his statement about Obama 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 it involved detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

**mattyrm**

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.

Exactly, the military ain't a democracy, you know the crack when you sign on the dotted line, its not like the US has a conscript army. If you dont like the military, you put your chit in and you leave.

The guys a fething dill weed.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

Or if you end up in prison.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

I think the point is not to do with the lawfulness of the orders, is it the political nature of the declaration.

No soldiers need to announce they will not follow unlawful orders since, as Frazzled pointed out, it is a standard part of military law.

Therefore to make such a declaration on a Tea Party website against President Obama specifically, there is a clear partisan political motive.

Soldiers are meant not to be political in their service life.

**sirlynchmob**

the thing is though, when you enlist you swear to follow the orders of the president. you also swear to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

What he did on FB was in violation of the UCMJ. there's a whole article on how you will not talk gak about your senior NCO's, officers, or presidents. Everyone in the military knows that one. They have poster sized summaries of the UCMJ in every office.

he's guilty of that, and the article he violated lists the punishments he can receive.

You can't just quit the military though, all you can really do is finish up your time, keep your mouth shut, and go home.

Honorable is the best way to get discharged, less than honorable, isn't as good, but its better than a dishonorable. the only time it really matters is if he tries to get another government job.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Or if you end up in prison.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

I think the point is not to do with the lawfulness of the orders, is it the political nature of the declaration.

No soldiers need to announce they will not follow unlawful orders since, as Frazzled pointed out, it is a standard part of military law.

Therefore to make such a declaration on a Tea Party website against President Obama specifically, there is a clear partisan political motive.

Soldiers are meant not to be political in their service life.

i'm surprised about the dishonorable (if true). Thats serious gak. Its like being an exfelon. He won't be able to get a job for squat now.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:i'm surprised about the dishonorable (if true). Thats serious gak. Its like being an exfelon. He won't be able to get a job for squat now.

He is getting a Less-than-honorable discharge*. Not as good as an honorable, not as bad as a dishonorable. It says so in the article you linked just a few posts ago.

*That is the recommendation of the panel, it is awaiting approval.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:i'm surprised about the dishonorable (if true). Thats serious gak. Its like being an exfelon. He won't be able to get a job for squat now.

He is getting a Less-than-honorable discharge*. Not as good as an honorable, not as bad as a dishonorable. It says so in the article you linked just a few posts ago.

*That is the recommendation of the panel, it is awaiting approval.

Ok. Wait did I link to an article?

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:The Marine in question's case has been updated. They have recommended he get the boot, and that he get a "less than honorable" discharge (I've never heard of that, is that different than dishonorable?).

Probably a summation of having his security clearance removed, which means he'll probably never be able to get one again, and further means that most of his working experience is rendered null and void.

**Ouze**

I found a good writeup of an OTH discharge here. It seems appropriate for what he did - certainly any civilian job would fire you for mocking the CEO publicly.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:Ok. Wait did I link to an article?

My bad, that was Ouze.

**sirlynchmob**

so he got the boot and other than honorable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lTszxZTd4g&feature=channel

**Bromsy**

Unless he was a crap marine he ought to have gotten an honorable and just been quietly kept from any further gov't employ. Nine years is a fair bit of a commitment. That said... bitch about your boss all you want, just don't do it in print. At least we were smart enough to remember that in the Army.

**Ahtman**

Bromsy wrote:Unless he was a crap marine he ought to have gotten an honorable and just been quietly kept from any further gov't employ.

I'm not sure that the best message to send is that if you blatantly insult the boss you get to keep your benefits and be in good standing. With nine years in, he should have known better.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:With nine years in, he should have known better.

Pretty much.

**Bromsy**

So we meet in the middle with a general discharge.

General (Under Honorable Conditions). If a member's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as General (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the member's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member's military conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the record. A General (under honorable conditions) characterization of discharge may jeopardize a member's ability to benefit from the Montgomery G.I. Bill if they, in fact, had contributed. Moreover, the member will not normally be allowed to reenlist or enter a different military service.

Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. OTH Discharges are warranted when the reason for separation is based upon a pattern of behavior that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services, or when the reason for separation is based upon one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services. Examples of factors that may be considered include the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of a special position of trust, disregard by a superior of customary superior-subordinate relationships, acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States or the health and welfare of other members of the Military Services, and deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons.

Persons awarded an OTH characterization of service: are not entitled to retain their uniforms or wear them home (although they may be furnished civilian clothing at a cost of not more than $50); must accept transportation in kind to their homes; are subject to recoupment of any reenlistment bonus they may have received; are not eligible for notice of discharge to employers (which may affect unemployment benefits); and, do not receive mileage fees from the place of discharge to their home of record.

It is generally believed that an OTH Discharge will render an individual ineligible for all VA Benefits. This is not necessarily so. The Department of Veterans Affairs will make its own determination with respect as to whether the OTH was based on conditions which would forfeit any or all VA benefits. Most veterans' benefits will be forfeited if that determination is adverse to the former service-member, such as when based on the following circumstances: (1) Desertion; (2) escape prior to trial by general court-martial; (3) conscientious objector who refuses to perform military duties, wear the uniform, or comply with lawful orders of competent military authorities; (4) willful or persistent misconduct; (5) offense(s) involving moral turpitude; (6) mutiny or spying; or (7) homosexual acts involving aggravating circumstances.

**Ahtman**

Bromsy wrote:honest

"I won't follow orders from this President"
"Wut?"
"You found my politically titled page? Err, I meant I won't follow unlawful orders given by this President"

Bromsy wrote:faithful

The part of sending The CiC's picture Photoshopped onto the Jackass poster, as well as others, to other military pages is faithful in what way?

I'm willing to bet that the panel that was convened knows the same things you listed about the different types of discharges as well as more specific details of the person in question and in the end they chose to go with OTH. I doubt they just sat around playing Robot Unicorn Attack and trhew a dart at a board to come to a decision.

**MrDwhitey**

Ahtman wrote:I doubt they just sat around playing Robot Unicorn Attack and trhew a dart at a board to come to a decision.

And yet somehow I feel this should be how all cases are decided.