The military shaft

Discussion in 'Military' started by Flanders, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,552
    Thanks Received:
    632
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,577
    Marine Sergeant Gary Stein is the latest military case to make the news:

    If this is correct:

    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:


    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2012
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,815
    Thanks Received:
    1,789
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,870
    Marine superimposed Obama’s face on donkey image...
    :eusa_shifty:
    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.
     
  4. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2012
  5. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,552
    Thanks Received:
    632
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,577
    To Wiseacre: That’s true, and that’s where they got him. However, the article I linked in the OP tells us:

    Criticizing Hussein is the offense but they admit this:

    And this:

    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:


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

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
     
  7. whitehall
    Online

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,773
    Thanks Received:
    4,332
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,732
    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.
     
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Needless to say, if the president were a republican, you’d be among the first calling for Stein’s head.
     
  9. whitehall
    Online

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,773
    Thanks Received:
    4,332
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,732
    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.
     
  10. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,552
    Thanks Received:
    632
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,577
    To whitehall: It’s both. If not, high-ranking officers lack character.

    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.


    To whitehall: Thank you.
     

Share This Page