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.
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.
Last edited: