Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFrom the NYT today: Military Board Says Marine Who Criticized President Obama Should Be Dismissed
A military board has recommended dismissal for a Marine sergeant who criticized President Barack Obama on his Facebook page, including allegedly putting the president’s face on a “Jackass” movie poster.
The Marine Corps administrative board said after a daylong hearing late Thursday at Camp Pendleton that Sgt. Gary Stein has committed misconduct and should be dismissed.
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
Can the military legitimately restrict the rights of free expression of those who choose to be in the military, particularly with regard to criticism of the president? I am inclined to think that it can, especially because enrollment in the military is voluntary, and respect for the chain of command, which the president himself heads, is an important part of military culture. But I am curious what those who have been in the military actually think.
All Things in Moderation 
Scott, my answer is yes the military can. The President is the Commander in Chief. It’s the same as a private publicly criticizing a general. As much as I don’t like the current President, he’s still the CiC.
LikeLike
McWing:
As much as I don’t like the current President, he’s still the CiC.
That is my thinking as well. I liken it to a mid-level employee at a corporation publicly mocking and degrading the CEO. Would I have a problem with the CEO firing the employee for insubordination? No, I wouldn’t. And I wouldn’t consider it a violation of free speech rights, because such rights do not guarantee the absence of any consequences for having engaged in speech. They just guarantee the absence of legal consequences. The fact that the military is the government may cloud the issue, but as an employer, I think the government can behave just as any other employer would be allowed to behave.
Of course, who knows if the courts would allow even a private employer to fire an employee for such insubordination given the proliferation of employee “rights” these days, but since I am inclined to think a private employer should be allowed to do so, I am also inclined to think the government should be as well.
LikeLike
I do think the “less than honorable” discharge is unwarranted. He was in for 9 years and was a sargent. Not an easy rank to achieve.
LikeLike
I fought some courts martial over similar matters in 70-72. I never lost. The issue then was free speech and criticism of the ‘Nam war. The critical distinction was “on duty” vs. “off duty”. Lines were clearer. Here, the webpage stays up while the Marine is “on duty”. I do not know how this area of the law has evolved over the last 40 years.
One thing worth mentioning is the difference in an enlisted man’s oath and an officer’s oath. Enlisted men swear to obey the orders of the POTUS and their officers, officers only give allegiance to the Constitution.
LikeLike
Mark:
Enlisted men swear to obey the orders of the POTUS and their officers, officers only give allegiance to the Constitution.
I didn’t know that. That is interesting.
LikeLike
Scott, I know it is Good Friday, but we at least need a faux morning report. One where I get to ask why the ADP numbers were so different from the DOL numbers, and you, john, and brent explain.
LikeLike
Most of the financial world is on holiday today, but I am at my desk, so I will put up a faux morning report. not sure I will be able to adequately explain the poor numbers, though.
LikeLike
Scott
I agree 100% with Troll. Actually giving up one’s First Amendment rights may sound like a horrible thing…it’s a trade off…one of the nice thing’s about the military is the bonding that takes place. Respect for authority in the proper setting can produce some good things. E.G. Even though Troll and i are diametrically opposed politically I still have respect for him and would stand with him in a real pinch because i know he put his butt in a place where he had to stand with other military personnel…it brings the “we’re on the same team’ thing into sharp focus.
I wish there was some way to transfer some of that ethos to civilian society…but again it’s a trade off…I’m not keen on following anybody without question anymore. But when your life is on the line…
Perhaps most of you have seen “A Few Good Men”. Jack Nicholson’s character was obviously somebody who carried things too far…but I confess I did understand his famous rant in that movie.
LikeLike
Hopefully the veterans can confirm or deny this, but I thought there was a prohibition on forming political groups and this Marine created an Armed Forces Tea Party facebook group. The name of that group seems problematic since it may be construed as an endorsement for the Tea Party. To me that is as big of a deal as his criticisms of Obama.
Mark raises a good point about allegiance to the Constitution vs obeying orders of the POTUS. Obviously one could argue they are defending the Constitution by ignoring an order from the POTUS that they deem unconstitutional. Also, has the Marine disobeyed any orders? It doesn’t appear that he has. If he hasn’t, I think an honorable discharge would be sufficient.
LikeLike
Nicholson’s guilt was in covering up his involvement, remember that Cruise’s character accused him of “… and when it bad you cut these guys loose!”
What was insipid was the Marine charged with murder simpering about not protecting the weaker Marine. The guy had an undiagnosed heart ailment. Who, beside the squid doctor (sorry Mark) could have known? They all thought the guy had an attitude problem and that a blanket party would fix it, like it has done, and will continue to do for Marines.
What the movie demonstrated was how weaselly many, if not most, officers are. Michigoose and Mark excluded!
LikeLike
TMW – I do think the “less than honorable” discharge is unwarranted. He was in for 9 years and was a sargent. Not an easy rank to achieve.
Not having served, I wonder if less than honorable discharge is typical for a charge of misconduct. I tend to agree with most of the comments here that the military can (and I would argue should) do what they did. The CIC is the CIC, regardless of ones feelings on him.
LikeLike
OT – I saw for the first time last night Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”. Very unlike me, but I am still trying to process what exactly I thought of it. I can say it held my attention for the two hours, it was a fairly well crafted and well acted movie…it was also very bloody. I am not sure if it was too gratuitious or not…it sort of is what it is or more accuratly it is what is has to be. Growing up Roman Catholic, I am familiar with the subject matter and I think it faithfully told the story. It is not a movie to like, like Braveheart. It is a movie to watch although it is hard to watch at times. I dunno…I am still struggling with what to think of it. Anyone else have any thoughts?
LikeLike
I was stunned by it. For me, the focus was on the agony of Christ’s knowing what was coming and then the reality of it, the utter suffering and isolation of that suffering. It was hard to come away from it though, with a sense of redemption and I think a Passion story needs it. Even The Last Temptation of Christ contained redemption. The Passion looks at the suffering only.
LikeLike
FYI…Faux Morning Report is up. Not much of substance, though, as virtually all markets but the $ fixed income market are closed.
LikeLike
Dave:
I saw the movie not long after it was originally released. I was brought up a Catholic, but am no longer a church-goer or even a believer, so I was surprised at myself when I came away with wonder at what an extremely powerful movie it was. I remember having a discussion about it a few weeks after having seen it, and remarking that I would not be surprised if viewing it in the days before Easter became an annual, cultural event within the Catholic community. I don’t know if that has happened, but I confess that I was moved by it, and I am not easily moved by many things relating to Catholicism.
LikeLike
BTW, any LeCarre / George Smiley fans out there, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was sublime.
LikeLike
“BTW, any LeCarre / George Smiley fans out there, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was sublime.”
That would include me. Thanks.
LikeLike
Thanks. I woke up this morning still thinking of and about it so I know that it had an impact on me. It is one thing to hear and recite “He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried”. It provides a whole new context to see that. I am not sure that I “got it” over the years or at least in the way I do now.
My family are not regular church goers and while they are aware of Christianity, they have not really gone to Sunday School and the like. But our dinner discussion on Tuesday was about what Easter is. So I talked through it and my very inquisitive 10 year old interrupted me and, looking incredulous at me, said “So we are celebrating someone getting killed? What kind of holiday is that?” Then we got to the redemption part. He is not the kind to just take the “he died for our sins” explanation and I don’t know that what I did say really got through. In any case, after the last couple days, I have learned a few things: my kids won’t be watching the Passion for a while, until at least they get a better understanding and a little older, my kids probably need CCD or Sunday school, and the meaning of Easter is probably not the best topic for dinner conversation.
LikeLike
I do not understand the substance of the charge, apparently. Conduct of an enlisted man prejudicial to good order is punishable under UCMJ 134 and the venue is a court martial; could be general, special, or summary.
What is this Admin review board process? TMW? RUK? ‘Goose?
I thought that was for head cases, not UCMJ violations. If it isn’t tried as a UCMJ violation, how do they get to a BCD or less than honorable discharge?
I thought Admins could only lead to general under honorable or medical under honorable conditions.
I have not seen the inside of a military courtroom since 1974 so everything I “know” could be wrong.
LikeLike
Mark
For all my commie pinko tree hugging ways, one of the things of which I’m proudest, is my honorable discharge. I stayed out of the Military’s legal system, nothing but good behavior from me.
Given my posts here and elsewhere I along with those who have read them am somewhat surprised at how well I was able to fit into military life…almost considered making it a career.
I have no idea about the laws…just what Troll indicated earlier…imagine a General coming on base…you didn’t like him…would you salute him…would you salute the Commander in Chief. I would have saluted all of our Presidents..GWB…Nixon..there are some I disagree with vehemently but while serving I would have only done so in the privacy of the voting booth.
LikeLike
Mark:
My understanding is that Stein was found to have violated DoD directive 1344.10 which, among other things, prohibits active duty to: “4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.” I believe he was given the chance (order?) to take down the FB page, but declined, which might be the reason for the UCMJ 134 charge.
I think it is telling that the Armed Forces Tea Party disavowed Stein’s FB page and the vitriol posted there.
LikeLike
Mike – I think it is telling that the Armed Forces Tea Party disavowed Stein’s FB page and the vitriol posted there.
Why is that telling? I don’t know much (well anything) about the Armed Forces Tea Party – do they normally endorse vitriol?
LikeLike
Dave!:
Why is that telling?
It is telling because the vitriol on the FB page was beyond the bounds of what the Armed Forces Tea Party thought was acceptable — beyond simply political disagreement. I think the AFTP is sincere in its beliefs and wants to do things the right way (and doesn’t endorse vitriol). And they know that the media will take Stein’s FB crap and hang it on the AFTP, which isn’t helpful to them and isn’t what they stand for.
The AFTP has its own website (armedforcesteaparty.com). It is pretty well done.
LikeLike
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/06/dissenting-while-enlisted-will-get-you-f
Perhaps this Marine should have realized he wasn’t an 4-star general
LikeLike
Late to the party here. Mark, I’m guessing it was an Article 15 hearing, but that’s just a guess. And I recall at least one Article 15 that I processed when I was working as a personnel officer that resulted in a bad conduct discharge.
Troll: thanks for not counting me as a weasel! 🙂 And,
BTW, any LeCarre / George Smiley fans out there, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was sublime.
that would include me as well, so thanks for the recommendation!
LikeLike
‘Goose, during the ‘Nam conflict an Article 15 was strictly for non-judicial punishment and could not result in incarceration or separation. It was imposed if you were given the option of avoiding CM by your commanding officer. I guess it changed.
Mike, I am interested in what kind of a hearing resulted in recommending separation, and in the procedural aspect. If Kelley is right, then Article 15 is way tougher than it used to be, and I do not know why anyone would choose it.
This is reported as completely Admin – no appeal to COMA. I will have to research this.
LikeLike
Like it or not, when you join the military, you forfeit some rights that your civilian counterparts have, like the ability to quit whenever you want, and the right to say whatever you like. IIRC, the Marines won’t even let you get married until you are an E-3 (because you can’t afford to raise a family on an E-1 or E-2 salary).
So, that is part and parcel of joining the military. And as a Sergeant with 9 years in, he knew better. If “other than honorable” means a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge, then that more or less is tantamount to a felony conviction, which is a pretty harsh penalty given the crime. If “other than honorable” means general discharge, then that is viewed differently.
LikeLike