Marine critical of Obama faces charge

Post Reply New Topic

True a soldier can not but disobedient they are trained to follow orders with out question and do what they are told.

Then let's see this dumbshit soldier boy talking trash about Obama get kicked in his junk thirty times. Bet Rico couldn't take that!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If you read the reg, officers are banned from talking ill of the comander in chief. Officers.

But by your opinion, you think I should have been shot. So I'm going to go ahead and think you should die in a fire. And I'm going to use as the basis for my opinion, the same as you used for yours. Nothing.



Read that again. Was he in uniform while making internet posts? Is that even relevant?? But if he was not in uniform it is not applicable to his actions. If he is not a commissioned officer the second line does not apply to him whatsoever.

He has not broken rules, regs, or laws by his actions. He just pissed some people off who want to flex their epeen…and are trying to take it out on him in this underhanded and illegitimate manner.

For one thing, he was participating in a discussion about (and advocating against) a political cause - in this case, Obamacare. It would have been the same in principle if he'd been advocating for or against, say, Michigan's emergency manager law or opposing a treaty with Haiti or any other cause. The regulation includes situations where the person in question is representing themselves as a member of the military, not just strictly those where they're in uniform, and the page in question was full of him representing himself as a member of the military and not just a private citizen.

To give you an idea, I work for a company called Meijer, which has a similar policy. I can talk about my opinions of, say, the retail experience or how customers might shop better, but only as a private individual, which I must clearly state and stand by (by the by, all of this is also as a private citizen, and in no way reflects any views of my employer). If I were to represent myself as a representative of Meijer without formal permission, I could face reprimands up to, and possibly including, termination of employment (especially if I damage to company's reputation as a result).

Sound familiar? It should! The military's policy is very similar, and for (what I, as a private citizen in no way representative of Meijer as a company or my individual store) similar reasons. Retail stores and other companies have to worry about two things when it comes to media use and social networking - their company's image (PR) and their company culture. The military has to worry about those things as well, both with an eye to recruitment and in terms of cohesion within the chain of command. The fact that the soldier was exercising his political will is not the problem - it's that he was doing it as a member of the military and not as a private citizen, thus creating the image of dissension in the ranks. That image isn't just bad for the civvies, it's bad inside the military as well because it damages the integrity of the chain of command, an integrity that is vital to maintain discipline and ensure that anything actually gets done.

He'll fight the charges, and he will lose on those grounds. He can get political all he wants once he's discharged.

Clearly the the anti-war group was in the wrong around this time. /s

If I worked for Microsoft, and openly criticized Steve Ballmer, I would be fired too.

Fine because that is a made up story (not the alcoholism)

They have those freedoms as soon as they take off the uniform.

A disciplined service must be precisely that: disciplined. A forces' member knows the score before enlisting or accepting a commission, and is being disingenuous at best--and more likely mendacious--when he claims to be "shocked" that the armed forces would enforce a clearly articulated policy.

That is right. Before anyone takes the oath, he/she knows that he must give up political autonomy and outspokenness. A service man may vote, but he cannot be overtly partisan. That is one of the ground rules. If one wants to be political he must not go into military service.

ruveyn

Yep.

He was still serving, as I understand it a soldier is *always* in uniform.

"In uniform" is sometimes used to mean "as a member of the military" rather than literally wearing a uniform as clothing.

Unless the article is grossly wrong about the facts, he did take political actions while representing himself as a member of the military.


There is a thing in the UCMJ that is called the "general article". With that, they can get you for things that weren't specifically spelled out as prohibited. Yes, it really is that open-ended.

I don't believe you're correct about his not breaking the letter of any rules, laws or regulations, but if you were right they could still get him on it. That's without discussing orders, which he has also broken.

He's in the military. If he doesn't like the president, his options are to suck it up or resign. He picked an option that was not one of those. Why shouldn't he be dismissed?

Amen.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

A military serviceman during the term of his enlistment is always on duty. 24//7/365.25 Even when buff naked the military man is always bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

ruveyn

The UCMJ always applies, but the military's concern is with opinions being associated with the uniform or with disrespect to the chain of command.

The military cares if a marine says "I'm a marine and Obama is a moron who I will not obey." The military does not care if a marine says "I'm George, and Obama is a moron."

quoted for truth