Marine's Facebook page tests military rules

[Two Thumbs]

Marine's Facebook page tests military rules - Yahoo! News

Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.
While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.
The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.
While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad.


In the military, most rights become privileges.

Right to bear arms; gone
free speech; gone
privacy; pfft, I shared a bunk
press; non-existant
and so on.

He's fucked, and he knows it.

this also shows a lack of discipline on his part. Not something that gets him kicked out, but defenatly demoted.

 

[Conservative]

It takes guts to do something you KNOW you're gonna get boned up the ass for.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It takes guts to do something you KNOW you're gonna get boned up the ass for.

No it doesn't.

No great harm will befall him for this.


When he signed on, he volunteered to follow all the rules. Now he can't be trusted, and you 'must' be able to trust each other in the military.

 

[pinqy]

While it's true that Article 88 of the UCMJ (Contempt toward officials) only applies to commissioned officers, each service has their own regulations that also forbid such behavior from enlisted.

What might get him is his stated intent to violate Art 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) and/or Art 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation).

Also possible violations of Art 82, Solicitation to violate Art 94, Mutiny.

Then of course there's the fallback of General Article 134 as his acts are clearly "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, [and] conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

 

[Warrior102]

I'm not finding his FB page - only a group that's in favor of what he's doing.

 

[Two Thumbs]

While it's true that Article 88 of the UCMJ (Contempt toward officials) only applies to commissioned officers, each service has their own regulations that also forbid such behavior from enlisted.

What might get him is his stated intent to violate Art 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) and/or Art 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation).

Also possible violations of Art 82, Solicitation to violate Art 94, Mutiny.

Then of course there's the fallback of General Article 134 as his acts are clearly "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, [and] conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

Art 90 and 92, he broke by posting his political beliefs on the FB.

82 is a stretch and 94 is out.

The Gen Art is always tacked onto everything.

 

[pinqy]

While it's true that Article 88 of the UCMJ (Contempt toward officials) only applies to commissioned officers, each service has their own regulations that also forbid such behavior from enlisted.

What might get him is his stated intent to violate Art 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) and/or Art 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation).

Also possible violations of Art 82, Solicitation to violate Art 94, Mutiny.

Then of course there's the fallback of General Article 134 as his acts are clearly "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, [and] conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

Art 90 and 92, he broke by posting his political beliefs on the FB.

Eh, you can wiggle out of that one depending on the specific wording of the Navy/USMC regulations on political beliefs and the full contents of the FB page. You can state political beliefs withing certain limits. Stating that one will not obey an unlawful order is not itself a violation of anything. A lot hinges on whether his FB page constitutes a "political organization/club," and how overt his political statements were.

82 is a stretch and 94 is out.

If he is soliciting others to disobey lawful orders (and all orders are presumed to be lawful) then he is soliciting others to mutiny. It is a bit of a stretch, but not too much.

The Gen Art is always tacked onto everything.

Of course, but odds are that's what they'll get him on. His actions are prejudicial to good order and dixcipline and brings discredit to the armed forces. That's the only one they have a clear and unquestioned violation.

My prediction: Art 15, reduction in rank to Lance Corporal, a fine, and extra duty.

 

[bodecea]

Marine's Facebook page tests military rules - Yahoo! News

Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.
While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.
The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.
While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad.


In the military, most rights become privileges.

Right to bear arms; gone
free speech; gone
privacy; pfft, I shared a bunk
press; non-existant
and so on.

He's fucked, and he knows it.

this also shows a lack of discipline on his part. Not something that gets him kicked out, but defenatly demoted.

If he did what you say, yes...he's screwed.

 

[Two Thumbs]

While it's true that Article 88 of the UCMJ (Contempt toward officials) only applies to commissioned officers, each service has their own regulations that also forbid such behavior from enlisted.

What might get him is his stated intent to violate Art 90 (Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer) and/or Art 92 ( Failure to obey order or regulation).

Also possible violations of Art 82, Solicitation to violate Art 94, Mutiny.

Then of course there's the fallback of General Article 134 as his acts are clearly "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, [and] conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

Art 90 and 92, he broke by posting his political beliefs on the FB.

Eh, you can wiggle out of that one depending on the specific wording of the Navy/USMC regulations on political beliefs and the full contents of the FB page. You can state political beliefs withing certain limits. Stating that one will not obey an unlawful order is not itself a violation of anything. A lot hinges on whether his FB page constitutes a "political organization/club," and how overt his political statements were.

82 is a stretch and 94 is out.

If he is soliciting others to disobey lawful orders (and all orders are presumed to be lawful) then he is soliciting others to mutiny. It is a bit of a stretch, but not too much.

The Gen Art is always tacked onto everything.

Of course, but odds are that's what they'll get him on. His actions are prejudicial to good order and dixcipline and brings discredit to the armed forces. That's the only one they have a clear and unquestioned violation.

My prediction: Art 15, reduction in rank to Lance Corporal, a fine, and extra duty.

I agree.

Except I'm thinking he's going to have to kiss ass to avoid 30 days in the brig.

reduction, 1/2 pay for 90, extra duty 30-90

 

[Two Thumbs]

Marine's Facebook page tests military rules - Yahoo! News

Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.
While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.
The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.
While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad.


In the military, most rights become privileges.

Right to bear arms; gone
free speech; gone
privacy; pfft, I shared a bunk
press; non-existant
and so on.

He's fucked, and he knows it.

this also shows a lack of discipline on his part. Not something that gets him kicked out, but defenatly demoted.

If he did what you say, yes...he's screwed.

It's from the AP.

Going on what I have [he's innocent until...], he's gunna get the bunga bunga.

 

[Conservative]

It takes guts to do something you KNOW you're gonna get boned up the ass for.

No it doesn't.

No great harm will befall him for this.


When he signed on, he volunteered to follow all the rules. Now he can't be trusted, and you 'must' be able to trust each other in the military.

There are 'levels' to being boned up the ass...lol. I'm not saying he'll be sent to Levinworth or something. I'm saying he'll have some form of discipline applied, should the military deem fit to do so.

 

[bodecea]

I'm guessing the Military will want to give him an OTH....but he may ask for a Court Martial...

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm guessing the Military will want to give him an OTH....but he may ask for a Court Martial...

They might.

but the military has gotten publicity savvy.

They drop the big hammer on him and he goes super public once he's out. And a court martial would bring even more attention to the situation as he could bring in a civilian lawyer who has no restrictions.

 

[Conservative]

Did you order a Code Red for Sgt. Stein?

You're God Damned Right I DID!

 

[Si modo]

He should not have done that. He needs to be disciplined. I don't know what is appropriate, but it has to be hard enough to discourage anything of the sort again.

 

[Inthemiddle]

1) Is there a compelling government interest in prohibiting service members from expressing their views, or from prohibiting them from expressing anything that this Marine expressed?

2) Are the rules narrowly tailored to achieve those goals?

3) Is this the least restrictive means possible to achieve those goals?


I'm not sure that I can say yes to all three of those criteria. Also, to the OP, saying that the right to bear arms disappears when you're in the military is absolutely absurd. In case you didn't notice, the military carries alot of weapons, which civilians don't normally have access to. That was a really stupid thing to say. Rights are rights. They remain rights, even in the course of military service. You do not lose the right to free speech. That's why DADT was ruled unconstitutional. You do not lose the right to the press. You can watch or read any news source you want. You do not lose your rights. That's a very ignorant thing to say.

 

[Two Thumbs]

1) Is there a compelling government interest in prohibiting service members from expressing their views, or from prohibiting them from expressing anything that this Marine expressed?

2) Are the rules narrowly tailored to achieve those goals?

3) Is this the least restrictive means possible to achieve those goals?


I'm not sure that I can say yes to all three of those criteria. Also, to the OP, saying that the right to bear arms disappears when you're in the military is absolutely absurd. In case you didn't notice, the military carries alot of weapons, which civilians don't normally have access to. That was a really stupid thing to say. Rights are rights. They remain rights, even in the course of military service. You do not lose the right to free speech. That's why DADT was ruled unconstitutional. You do not lose the right to the press. You can watch or read any news source you want. You do not lose your rights. That's a very ignorant thing to say.

Clearly you never served or you wouldn't have called me ignorant.

soldiers don't own those guns. personal fire arms are not allowed on base and knives must be small.

If we had free speech, this wouldn't be an issue.

and so on ans so forth.


I suggest you don't guess in the future when dealing with people that know, since they lived it.

At least 2 other Vets have posted, none of them corrected me b/c they know I'm right.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Clearly you never served or you wouldn't have called me ignorant.

Actually, I did.

soldiers don't own those guns.

Never said they did. But clearly they are bearing arms.

personal fire arms are not allowed on base and knives must be small.

Yeah, so?

If we had free speech, this wouldn't be an issue.

Freedom of speech cannot be infringed upon by the government without a compelling government interest. That is true for all people. If an action by government infringes upon freedom of speech of a person, and is challenged in court, it will be appraised with the same standard, whether the person be military or civilian. I outlined that standard. and ss I said, I'm not sure that standard is met here.

I suggest you don't guess in the future when dealing with people that know, since they lived it.

Not sure exactly what you are attempting to insinuate. I've outlined the criteria for permissible government intrusion into freedom of speech, and I'm not sure that this case meets those criteria. I don't recall saying anything about the future.

At least 2 other Vets have posted, none of them corrected me b/c they know I'm right.

If a million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

 

[pinqy]

1) Is there a compelling government interest in prohibiting service members from expressing their views, or from prohibiting them from expressing anything that this Marine expressed?

Yes. The Oath of Enlistment requires that service members "obey the orders of the President of the United States." Publically expressing intent to violate the Oath is prejudicial to good order and discipline, a necessity in the military.

2) Are the rules narrowly tailored to achieve those goals?

Yes, the prohibitions do not prohibit private speech, only public speech as a service member and prohibits disobeying lawful orders and intent to and solicitation to others to disobey lawful orders.

3) Is this the least restrictive means possible to achieve those goals?

Yes.

Also, to the OP, saying that the right to bear arms disappears when you're in the military is absolutely absurd. In case you didn't notice, the military carries alot of weapons, which civilians don't normally have access to.

As part of their duties...which is not an exercise in the right to bear arms. While possession of arms (including assigned weapons) is strictly controlled on military bases, I disagree that it's an infringement on the right to bear arms, but your talking about assigned weapons is just silly and irrelevant.

 

[High_Gravity]

Marine's Facebook page tests military rules - Yahoo! News

Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.
While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.
The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.
While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad.


In the military, most rights become privileges.

Right to bear arms; gone
free speech; gone
privacy; pfft, I shared a bunk
press; non-existant
and so on.

He's fucked, and he knows it.

this also shows a lack of discipline on his part. Not something that gets him kicked out, but defenatly demoted.

He broke the rules, Obama is his commander in chief whether he likes it or not.