The military shaft

[Flanders]

Marine Sergeant Gary Stein is the latest military case to make the news:

Stein, 26, is accused of breaching good order and discipline by making statements critical of President Barack Obama on his Facebook page, Armed Forces Tea Party, and violating a military directive against political involvement by managing the page.

If this is correct:

While the Uniform Code of Military Justice bars troops from speaking at political rallies or running for office, it does permit limited political activity as long as troops are acting as individuals, and not as representatives of the Defense Department.

Despite lawsuit, Stein discharge hearing to go forward
by Hope Hodge (more by this author)
Posted 04/04/2012 ET
Updated 04/05/2012 ET
Update 9:15 a.m.:

Sgt. Gary Stein seeks to stop his discharge hearing; lawsuit says he was exercising First Amendment right - HUMAN EVENTS

those officers who engage in political activity for the Defense Department —— as did General Martin Dempsey —— should be punished more severely than Sergeant Gary Stein. You may remember that Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified at a Senate hearing. It’s safe to say their political comments represented the Department of Defense.

A few years ago Admiral Samuel Locklear represented the Administration, and by extension the Department of Defense, when he made political comments in support of ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty:

The Navy has long favored U.S. ratification of LOST, arguing primarily that accession to LOST would enhance the Navy's navigational rights and freedoms, and most recently as argued by Admiral Samuel Locklear, President Obama's nominee to lead the U.S. Pacific Command, that joining LOST would strengthen America's "credibility" in solving maritime disputes and promoting rule of law on the world's oceans. Both these assertions are questionable given the harsh realities of how LOST is likely to work in practice and how adversary nations -- whether parties to the treaty or not -- are likely to go about advancing their own strategic ambitions, irrespective of what LOST may have to say about it.

LOST Trade Routes
By Ben Lerner on 3.5.12 @ 6:07AM

The American Spectator : LOST Trade Routes

Thank God the LOST was not ratified although it can still be brought up for ratification in the future. Being wrong about a treaty is not the issue. If high-ranking officers are free to make political statements Sergeant Stein must also be covered by the same policy.

My personal belief is that military personnel should not engage in political speech. The very nature of a political comment favors one political view. Comments by General Dempsey and Admiral Locklear were pure political speech favoring the New World Order agenda. Military personnel defend the country —— they do not defend a specific political agenda, or at least they shouldn’t.

If you want to stretch it a bit you can argue that defending the Constitution automatically defends a specific political agenda; limited government and individual liberties. Hussein & Company might object to defending the Constitution on those political grounds. I can’t see the liberal intelligentsia making that argument.

Finally, the cases of Colonel Terry Lakin and Army Specialist Michael New encompassed a political component to be sure, but they come under a different category than Dempsey and Locklear. Just as Lakin and New got the military shaft, I’m betting that Sergeant Stein will suffer the same fate.

 

[editec]

Every hear of the United States Military Code?

THAT is the legal system this MARINE is dealing with.

Forget everything you think you know about the US Consitution.

Those laws are null and void to SERVICE members, kiddies.

If one claims to have been in the service and one doesn't already know this?

It is reasonable for us to assume that one has never been in the military regardless of what you tell us.

 

[waltky]

Marine superimposed Obama’s face on donkey image...

Prosecutors: Marine superimposed Obama’s face on 'Jackass' movie poster
4/05/12 - A Marine facing dismissal for making statements critical of President Obama superimposed the president’s face on a "Jackass" movie poster and sold “Nobama” stickers, according to Marine prosecutors.

An administrative separation hearing began Thursday for Sgt. Gary Stein, who could receive an “other than honorable” discharge for saying he would not follow orders and calling Obama a “domestic enemy” on his “Armed Forces Tea Party” Facebook page. The Associated Press reported from the hearing at Camp Pendleton in San Diego, Calif., on Thursday that Marine prosecutor Capt. John Torresala said Stein acted irresponsibly and disregarded repeated warnings that his anti-Obama postings violated Pentagon policy.

Stein has argued that he was acting as a private citizen, and said he was talking theoretically about not following unlawful orders. “My heart is heavy this morning as I tie up my boots and start my hour drive to Camp Pendleton,” Stein wrote on his Facebook page early Thursday morning. “It hurts me to know that I could be punished for the one of the constitutional rights I have given the last 9 years of my life to protect. “While I could have better chosen my words when making the comments in question, I feel that they do not warrant the punishment that could be handed down today,” he wrote.

Stein’s case has garnered the support of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a Marine reservist who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hunter wrote to the Marines this week urging them to drop their discharge proceedings against Stein. Stein sued in federal court Tuesday in an attempt to stop the military hearing Thursday, but the judge declined to delay the proceeding. His lawsuit argued that the military’s policy that prohibits political activities for service members in uniform is overly broad and violated his First Amendment rights. The court’s ruling said that the Marine’s decision on his discharge was not predetermined.

Source

 

[Wiseacre]

Every hear of the United States Military Code?

THAT is the legal system this MARINE is dealing with.

Forget everything you think you know about the US Consitution.

Those laws are null and void to SERVICE members, kiddies.

If one claims to have been in the service and one doesn't already know this?

It is reasonable for us to assume that one has never been in the military regardless of what you tell us.

Okay, first of all it's the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It is not true that military members are not subject to the Constitution and all other laws in this country; however it is true that when you enter military, you accept some additional limitations on the rights that every American citizen enjoys from the Bill of Rights.

The UCMJ has some extra restrictions that are deemed necessary to maintain good order and discipline. In this case, we're talking about freedom of speech; any employee in any US company can be disrespectful to the CEO, it ain't against the law. You might get fired, but you don't go to jail. In the military, it's different. Everyone in the military is required to follow the lawful orders from his superiors, and to mock them or disrespect them simply cannot be tolerated. And that includes the civilian leadership at the very top - the service secretaries, the sec'y of defense, and the president. It simply cannot be acceptable, and everyone in any service knows it. It is stressed from day one, you simply cannot be insubordinate to those higher in the chain of command.

 

[Flanders]

It is stressed from day one, you simply cannot be insubordinate to those higher in the chain of command.

To Wiseacre: That’s true, and that’s where they got him. However, the article I linked in the OP tells us:

From 2010 to 2012, the suit claims Stein maintained the page, discussing personal opinions as an individual, but not as a representative of the armed forces. In April 2010, Stein received permission from his unit leadership to appear on Hardball with Chris Matthews, but en route to the studio, he received a call from Headquarters Marine Corps ordering him back to his base. Following that incident, the complaint alleges, he was approached by a superior about his Facebook page with concerns about how the page was presented and that it could be construed as coming from military sources.

Stein removed his page, but re-launched it after reviewing the matter and the content, adding a disclaimer, still on the site, that the material was personal opinion and not affiliated with the armed forces. He claims he was not then advised to take down the page and has not been told to do so since then.

Criticizing Hussein is the offense but they admit this:

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.

And this:

. . . 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.

Military board says Marine should be dismissed
Associated Press
6:33 a.m. CDT, April 6, 2012

Obama-bashing Marine's ouster is backed by panel - chicagotribune.com

The government will not tolerate anybody in the military standing up for the Constitution, nor will the government dare change the “annoying” first part of the oath of enlistment:

I, (NAME), 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.

So they simply punish anyone who defends the Constitution. Put it this way. Any military man that stands up for the Constitution is seen as ultimately challenging an order to serve the United Nations. Such resistence to military authority must be nipped in the bud. Put it this way. Nobody can defend the Constitution and serve the United Nations. The two are natural enemies.

Parenthetically, Stein’s case appears to be a minor infraction on the face of it, but it clearly shows that the officer corps has been infiltrated by the very type of person the country was warned about in the Army-McCarthy hearings (1954).

The UN was only 9 years old at the time and Communists were rightly seen as the enemy. The Korean “Police Action” confused the issue. Communist expansion was stopped, but President Truman went through the UN to do it. That gave the impression that the UN was not the enemy.

A few Americans correctly identified the United Nations as the more dangerous enemy. My point is: Senator McCarthy was right. Indeed, Communists were infiltrating every branch of the armed services. Such men were fairly easy to identify as the years passed. Identifying military men who were not Communists, but whose first loyalty was to the UN, was not so easy. In the decades since the Army-McCarthy hearings Democrats & RINO advanced the careers of officers they could “trust.”

Understandably, in 1954 the United Nations was too young for Senator McCarthy to separate Communist true believers from UN-loyalists. Even today, most Americans cannot see the danger involved when our military serves the United Nations.

I’ve always believed that Colin Powell was the first UN-loyalist to make it all the way to the top. He is certainly the most successful “security risk” Senator McCarthy warned about. Today, there is General Dempsey and Admiral Locklear, and only the good Lord knows how many others occupy the upper ranks of every armed service. To no one’s surprise the MSM praises UN-loyalists to high heaven. After all, they are not like Benedict Arnold; so who would dare challenge the loyalty of a man wearing a chest full of ribbons?

Finally, the UCMJ says this:

935. ART. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY

(c) Any person subject to this chapter whose conduct is subject to inquiry shall be designated as a party. Any person subject to this chapter or employed by the Department of Defense who has a direct interest in the subject of inquiry has the right to be designated as a party upon request to the court. Any person designated as a party shall be given due notice and has the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, to cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence.

(f) Witnesses may be summoned to appear and testify and be examined before courts of inquiry, as provided for courts-martial.

Yet Colonel Lakin could not call witnesses. In short: The UCMJ means exactly what the brass wants it to mean.

 

[editec]

Every hear of the United States Military Code?

THAT is the legal system this MARINE is dealing with.

Forget everything you think you know about the US Consitution.

Those laws are null and void to SERVICE members, kiddies.

If one claims to have been in the service and one doesn't already know this?

It is reasonable for us to assume that one has never been in the military regardless of what you tell us.

Okay, first of all it's the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It is not true that military members are not subject to the Constitution and all other laws in this country; however it is true that when you enter military, you accept some additional limitations on the rights that every American citizen enjoys from the Bill of Rights.

Now there's a good example of a distinction without a difference.

ADDITONAL LIMITATIONS?



Military personal are endentured servants not citizens.

 

[whitehall]

In the greatest Country in the world the civilian government runs the Military. The UCMJ covers most violations but matters of policy like freedom of speech are interpreted by the administration. The point is that if you want someone to blame it's the administration not the Military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Criticizing Hussein…

Needless to say, if the president were a republican, you’d be among the first calling for Stein’s head.

 

[whitehall]

Criticizing Hussein…

Needless to say, if the president were a republican, you’d be among the first calling for Stein’s head.

It didn't happen during a republican administration. It happened during the most notorious socialist leaning administrations in history and let's see what Barry Hussein is going to do about freedom of speech in the Military.

 

[Flanders]

In the greatest Country in the world the civilian government runs the Military. The UCMJ covers most violations but matters of policy like freedom of speech are interpreted by the administration. The point is that if you want someone to blame it's the administration not the Military.

To whitehall: It’s both. If not, high-ranking officers lack character.

Needless to say, if the president were a republican, you’d be among the first calling for Stein’s head.

To C_Clayton_Jones: No I wouldn’t.

And if you want to defend Hussein you are free to do so. Don’t expect me to make your case for you.

It didn't happen during a republican administration. It happened during the most notorious socialist leaning administrations in history and let's see what Barry Hussein is going to do about freedom of speech in the Military.

To whitehall: Thank you.

 

[Toome]

I think the Pentagon really has no choice but to press on with the charges because (and I'm no lawyer) I don't think there's any precedence on this....yet. In other words, there's no precedence that allows the Pentagon to NOT charge Stein. I think what complicates this is that this is about statements made over the internet. The policy was not written with the internet in mind, so when it comes up, as this case did, new precedence has to be established.

There's another aspect to this that is a bit more technical than free speech over the internet, and that's the conduct expected of non-commissioned officers. And in this aspect, Stein may be on thin ice. He may win the court battle of free speech but may get slammed on misconduct.

It's misleading to say that the military limits free speech. There's a hairline difference between loss of liberty and discipline. Stein may have the right to post whatever he wants over the internet, but that doesn't stop the military from disciplining him for his actions. Hard to explain in a mixed forum of civilians and military because civilians tend to equate any adverse action as a loss of liberty. Not so in the military context. So Stein might successfully defend the principle of free speech but end up being separated as a result of his conduct.

 

[Flanders]

I think the Pentagon really has no choice but to press on with the charges because (and I'm no lawyer) I don't think there's any precedence on this....yet. In other words, there's no precedence that allows the Pentagon to NOT charge Stein. I think what complicates this is that this is about statements made over the internet. The policy was not written with the internet in mind, so when it comes up, as this case did, new precedence has to be established.

There's another aspect to this that is a bit more technical than free speech over the internet, and that's the conduct expected of non-commissioned officers. And in this aspect, Stein may be on thin ice. He may win the court battle of free speech but may get slammed on misconduct.

It's misleading to say that the military limits free speech. There's a hairline difference between loss of liberty and discipline. Stein may have the right to post whatever he wants over the internet, but that doesn't stop the military from disciplining him for his actions. Hard to explain in a mixed forum of civilians and military because civilians tend to equate any adverse action as a loss of liberty. Not so in the military context. So Stein might successfully defend the principle of free speech but end up being separated as a result of his conduct.

To Toome: Your Internet observation is interesting. I had not considered the implications.

The problem the military faces is maintaining the illusion of justice for enlisted personnel.

Also, changes to the UCMJ might unwittingly prevent officers like General Dempsey and Admiral Locklear from making political statements to advance their careers. On top of that, when high-ranking officers come out in favor of the United Nations and UN treaties they are violating their oath of office. All and all, Stein’s case could trigger some interesting results.

 

[Flanders]

No surprise here:

Sgt. Gary Stein will get an other-than-honorable discharge and lose most of his benefits for violating the policies, the Corps said.

Gary Stein, Marine Who Criticized Obama On Facebook, Will Receive Other-Than-Honorable Discharge
By ELLIOT SPAGAT 04/25/12 05:37 PM ET

Gary Stein, Marine Who Criticized Obama On Facebook, Will Receive Other-Than-Honorable Discharge

I will be surprised if a high-ranking officer is ever court-martialed for betraying the country to the United Nations much less hanged for treason.

 

[usmcstinger]

Every hear of the United States Military Code?

THAT is the legal system this MARINE is dealing with.

Forget everything you think you know about the US Consitution.

Those laws are null and void to SERVICE members, kiddies.

If one claims to have been in the service and one doesn't already know this?

It is reasonable for us to assume that one has never been in the military regardless of what you tell us.

Okay, first of all it's the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It is not true that military members are not subject to the Constitution and all other laws in this country; however it is true that when you enter military, you accept some additional limitations on the rights that every American citizen enjoys from the Bill of Rights.

Now there's a good example of a distinction without a difference.

ADDITONAL LIMITATIONS?



Military personal are endentured servants not citizens.

Active duty Military and Veterans were and still are Defenders of Freedom.
I, (NAME), 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 theUniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

There would be no Land of the Free with out the Brave.

 

[Mr Natural]

When you join the military, you have privileges, not rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now there's a good example of a distinction without a difference.

ADDITONAL LIMITATIONS?



Military personal are endentured servants not citizens.

Active duty Military and Veterans were and still are Defenders of Freedom.
I, (NAME), 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 theUniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

There would be no Land of the Free with out the Brave.

Quite a number of us on the board took the oath, some several times during their careers.

We all received numerous classes on what was lawful and unlawful orders, and what was respectful and disrespectful concerning the officers and commanders appointed above us.

The sergeant has no lawful, much less moral, excuse for his behavior.

He needs to get bounced out: less than honorable discharge, no time in the brig.

 

[Wiseacre]

Jake, I never said that, I think belongs to Editec, but not sure.