Posted on Nov 23, 2014
Marine gets other than honorable discharge for anti-Obama Facebook postings
17.6K
290
87
14
14
0
Think the content of online posts is harmless?
Is the Marine Corps right to discharge this Marine for his anti-Obama Facebook posts?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/marine-sgt-gary-stein-honorable-discharge-anti-obama/story?id=16216279
Is the Marine Corps right to discharge this Marine for his anti-Obama Facebook posts?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/marine-sgt-gary-stein-honorable-discharge-anti-obama/story?id=16216279
Posted in these groups: 
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 32
1
1
0
well here is the deal when you serve you cant bad mouth your commander and chief no matter how bad or good a leader they are in your eyes you have to keep your mouth shut if it is negative.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well, he earned it. I can't feel sorry for him. I am sure he was aware about the rules. I know he did not merely state facts.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I do not know the full depth of what was said/written, or what was done to the Marine prior to his discharge. Reading the responses here, it seems he may have been reprimanded of sorts and ordered to stop by his Command.
Having said that, I highly doubt that any service has changed since I joined the Air Force in 1986. We were instructed on Good Order and Discipline, self control, and about how the President is our Commander in Chief. Any service member should have enough self respect, dignity, and good moral character to know that bad-mouthing the President is wrong, disrespectful, and be ready to accept the punishnment handed to him/her for their actions. Actions that require disciplinary action to be taken.
Everyone has personal opinions. Everyone, or most individuals, join a political party. When you join the military, you give up the right to bad-mouth your supervision. You do not have rights in regard to bringing discredit upon your service, or this great nation.
Personally, I wish all Presidents were of the character of Ronald Reagan, and led this country and military as he did. Sadly, not everyone believes that, and not all Presidents lead the same. As members of the military, we give up the righ to publicly complain about them. Professionally speaking, it makes us look bad as individuals to publicly speak against our leaders, from our Flight, Squadron, Command, or even our President.
I am sure that whatever actions were taken to reprimand this individual for his comments on Facebook were taken in accordance with Command guidance. If he was verbally reprimanded or brought before his Commander for a formal hearing, and he continued to do so, he got what he deserved. If he did do all that, it is not very honorable of him to do so, and the type of discharge should have possibly been a dishonorable discharge. As it is, he should be able to appeal it for a change to honorable in the alotted number of years. That to me is wrong, but that is my opinion....
Having said that, I highly doubt that any service has changed since I joined the Air Force in 1986. We were instructed on Good Order and Discipline, self control, and about how the President is our Commander in Chief. Any service member should have enough self respect, dignity, and good moral character to know that bad-mouthing the President is wrong, disrespectful, and be ready to accept the punishnment handed to him/her for their actions. Actions that require disciplinary action to be taken.
Everyone has personal opinions. Everyone, or most individuals, join a political party. When you join the military, you give up the right to bad-mouth your supervision. You do not have rights in regard to bringing discredit upon your service, or this great nation.
Personally, I wish all Presidents were of the character of Ronald Reagan, and led this country and military as he did. Sadly, not everyone believes that, and not all Presidents lead the same. As members of the military, we give up the righ to publicly complain about them. Professionally speaking, it makes us look bad as individuals to publicly speak against our leaders, from our Flight, Squadron, Command, or even our President.
I am sure that whatever actions were taken to reprimand this individual for his comments on Facebook were taken in accordance with Command guidance. If he was verbally reprimanded or brought before his Commander for a formal hearing, and he continued to do so, he got what he deserved. If he did do all that, it is not very honorable of him to do so, and the type of discharge should have possibly been a dishonorable discharge. As it is, he should be able to appeal it for a change to honorable in the alotted number of years. That to me is wrong, but that is my opinion....
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Great comment, especially paragraphs 2, 3, and 5. On your opening sentence in paragraph 2, I'd guess that all the Services have changed substantially since 1986; the Army, at least, has changed substantially since I joined in 1996/2000.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I too would have a hard time obeying the orders of this President. Fortunately, I am not compelled to. My oath of enlistment and commissioning lapsed long before Obama came to office. However, I still consider myself obligated to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Is President Obama an enemy of the Constitution? Possibly. He has not declared himself such but has frequently railed against it as an imperfect document in need of change and unilaterally chosen to ignore portions that did not suit his purpose.
That being said, this Marine acted improperly in declaring that he would not obey the President's orders. In that case, he does not belong in the Marines. He may better serve in a militia where grousing is more acceptable.
All of us who have served or are serving should understand this. Military discipline requires that we leave a substantial portion of our rights at home with our civies while we serve. No, we are not required to serve blindly. Indeed, as the trials at Nuremberg proved, we may be called to judgment and held personally responsible if we obey unlawful orders. Thus, had this Marine said that he would not follow the unlawful orders of the President, he would have been merely stating a fact. However, that does not seem to be the case that got him dismissed.
Ultimately, he should feel relieved to have been discharged. Now he can come home and help his fellow citizens stand against the growing tyranny of political correctness, progressive incursions into our individual God-given rights and liberties, and real threats to our communities, all without restraint. He can also share the lessons he learned in the Marine Corp with his fellow citizens who were not honored to have served. They may need those skills and discipline...
That being said, this Marine acted improperly in declaring that he would not obey the President's orders. In that case, he does not belong in the Marines. He may better serve in a militia where grousing is more acceptable.
All of us who have served or are serving should understand this. Military discipline requires that we leave a substantial portion of our rights at home with our civies while we serve. No, we are not required to serve blindly. Indeed, as the trials at Nuremberg proved, we may be called to judgment and held personally responsible if we obey unlawful orders. Thus, had this Marine said that he would not follow the unlawful orders of the President, he would have been merely stating a fact. However, that does not seem to be the case that got him dismissed.
Ultimately, he should feel relieved to have been discharged. Now he can come home and help his fellow citizens stand against the growing tyranny of political correctness, progressive incursions into our individual God-given rights and liberties, and real threats to our communities, all without restraint. He can also share the lessons he learned in the Marine Corp with his fellow citizens who were not honored to have served. They may need those skills and discipline...
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish A balanced response--even though you're no longer serving, and even though you take a political stance against the President, you recognize the obligation of a servicemember to follow rules and regulations.
I'd highlight the below as the best part of your response:
"Military discipline requires that we leave a substantial portion of our rights at home with our civies while we serve. No, we are not required to serve blindly. Indeed, as the trials at Nuremberg proved, we may be called to judgment and held personally responsible if we obey unlawful orders."
I'd highlight the below as the best part of your response:
"Military discipline requires that we leave a substantial portion of our rights at home with our civies while we serve. No, we are not required to serve blindly. Indeed, as the trials at Nuremberg proved, we may be called to judgment and held personally responsible if we obey unlawful orders."
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Good, jacka## personally think what you want but it's our job to follow the guidance of the officers over us even if we don't agree of personally like it
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I hope you are directing that against the SM who said and did these things and not members here. I just wish this attitude would have been prevalent against former President George W. Bush.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-case-tests-the-limits-of-free-speech-on-facebook-and-other-social-media/2014/11/23/9e54dbd8-6f67-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html
Perhaps a related development; a Supreme Court ruling that speech on social media is less weighty than other speech could shape discussions such as the ones we've been having on the OTH discharged Marine. I agree with the many of you who have noted that the Marine's issue wasn't necessarily one of free speech; yet, the Supreme Court's ruling on this case will set precedent. Could a ruling that items posted on social media not have any actual value open the flood gates to military members no longer being constrained by the UCMJ in social media?
Perhaps a related development; a Supreme Court ruling that speech on social media is less weighty than other speech could shape discussions such as the ones we've been having on the OTH discharged Marine. I agree with the many of you who have noted that the Marine's issue wasn't necessarily one of free speech; yet, the Supreme Court's ruling on this case will set precedent. Could a ruling that items posted on social media not have any actual value open the flood gates to military members no longer being constrained by the UCMJ in social media?
Were Anthony Elonis’s Facebook postings harmless rants or real threats? The Supreme Court must...
In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court will consider whether an estranged husband’s Facebook postings constituted a “true threat” against his wife.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I get that Facebook is a place people vent... But sometimes just something's you don't post
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No matter your political beliefs, it is unwise to criticize your Commander In Chief in times of war. Its against good Order and discipline, be responsible for your actions. If you dont like the consequences then dont do it! Now i am not saying stand besides a President on everything but until one acts blatently in an illegal manner and/or goes against our constitution/Oath, we must maintain order. In the most tyrannical example, we would never organize a coup anyway...it would be the chiefs and the Ghost of Chesty Puller and Audie Murphy combining their powers forming a Magazord that the great warlord in history would bow down to but yeah....Get your DD214 first lol
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Regardless of the truth as compared to reality, the truth will always find a way to rise to the top. I do not disagree with you that if the individual was warned and counseled that he would require discipline. I do not believe that we lose the freedom of speech that we fight for, but because of our situation and where we are in positional authority and the chain of command we must do all we can to ensure that the chain of command is strong. 1LT William Clardy I will again remind you that the survivors are censored from telling the truth, and two years later the Americans who died needlessly still have no truths to share to ease the pain of the family members that were left behind. If you ever believe that the truth does not matter, then you have gone from being part of the solution to being part of the problem. The TRUTH always matters. It is what gives us justification to do the difficult things our jobs demand: we know that we are fighting for the side of right. If we can not believe that, then what are we putting our lives on the line for? There are too many inconsistencies for even the most obtuse of individuals to ignore occurring in our Government, and the people are starting to get sick of it. We need to do what we can to remind the world and the rest of America that the truth matters. If you were condemned of a crime you were innocent of, then I am sure the truth would be of high importance to you. The truth is important to a lot of people. We should always strive to ensure that we are following lawful orders and that what we are doing is for the greater good and not to support the greed or desires of some corrupt official. Without truth, all we have is anarchy.
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
PO1 Steven Kuhn, if you define truth as a complete compilation of the facts, you will find that truth does not coexist well with order -- if anything, the more detail you bring into the picture, the fuzzier the lines between black and white will seem. I will put my life on the line for a lot of things, but somebody else's definition of the truth is not high on that list.
To use your example, if I were convicted of a crime which I didn't commit, I would be highly motivated to find the facts I needed to exonerate myself. On the other hand, I would have a hard time caring less about whether the DA was having nooners with a someone on his staff during my trial unless I believed that fact somehow affected the jury's decision.
I am willing to do some seriously irrational things in the name of the admittedly maudlin collection of values and ethics which I hold dear, and for the benefit of people I also hold dear, but I'll settle for whatever I deem good enough to justify the risk (or an already incurred cost). Perfect justice is God's bailiwick, not mine.
I am willing to do some seriously irrational things in the name of the admittedly maudln values which I hold dear, and for the benefit of people I also hold dear, but I'll settle for whatever I deem good enough to justify the risk (or an already incurred cost). Perfection is God's bailiwick, not mine.
To use your example, if I were convicted of a crime which I didn't commit, I would be highly motivated to find the facts I needed to exonerate myself. On the other hand, I would have a hard time caring less about whether the DA was having nooners with a someone on his staff during my trial unless I believed that fact somehow affected the jury's decision.
I am willing to do some seriously irrational things in the name of the admittedly maudlin collection of values and ethics which I hold dear, and for the benefit of people I also hold dear, but I'll settle for whatever I deem good enough to justify the risk (or an already incurred cost). Perfect justice is God's bailiwick, not mine.
I am willing to do some seriously irrational things in the name of the admittedly maudln values which I hold dear, and for the benefit of people I also hold dear, but I'll settle for whatever I deem good enough to justify the risk (or an already incurred cost). Perfection is God's bailiwick, not mine.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
1LT William Clardy One Man's truth may be another man's poison. I do not know what you find difficult about an absolute. Truth is important. Good and evil may have there gray areas in your eyes, but they exist as absolutes too. If someone you cared deeply about died under questionable circumstances you would want to know what happened. You would want the truth. Benghazi is like that for more than just the family members. We do not leave serviceme members behind. Would you go into a battle not expecting someone to have your back? NO. The American people deserve the truth. Simple. Easy. Neat. So easy a child can understand it! I have read your repetitive post twice and still do not understand what "truth" you are trying to share!
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
I've got bad news for you, SSG Anthony Kuh, one "Truth" is that we have indeed left servicemen behind.
Do you have any idea how many P.O.W.s (as in confirmed as having been captured alive) we knowingly left behind in Vietnam and Laos in order to get back the ones who were repatriated? While I may not like that fact, I bet it troubles you much more than me because I don't forget the ones who did get brought home while lamenting those who had to be left.
Another unpleasant truth is that the man who made the most critical decisions which got Americans killed in Benghazi died that night. Ambassador Stevens decided to continue working out of the consulate despite multiple warnings, and the available options were actually pretty limited when he finally rolled snake eyes.
As to what the American people deserve, good luck getting them to listen to your truth. The vast majority, if presented with facts which contradict one of their favorite truths, will plug their ears and wait for the disturbing messenger to go away.
Do you have any idea how many P.O.W.s (as in confirmed as having been captured alive) we knowingly left behind in Vietnam and Laos in order to get back the ones who were repatriated? While I may not like that fact, I bet it troubles you much more than me because I don't forget the ones who did get brought home while lamenting those who had to be left.
Another unpleasant truth is that the man who made the most critical decisions which got Americans killed in Benghazi died that night. Ambassador Stevens decided to continue working out of the consulate despite multiple warnings, and the available options were actually pretty limited when he finally rolled snake eyes.
As to what the American people deserve, good luck getting them to listen to your truth. The vast majority, if presented with facts which contradict one of their favorite truths, will plug their ears and wait for the disturbing messenger to go away.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
If that's the case what does Joe get for a disastrous exit from Afghanistan, leaving Americans behind and responsible for the lives of our troops when they could have been alive today?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google