ACLU, others help Marine who criticized Obama fight dismissal

[The Northerner]

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

A Marine sergeant who criticized President Obama on Facebook is fighting to keep his position after he was told on Wednesday that he is being dismissed from the service with an other-than-honorable discharge.

Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative U.S. Justice Foundation said Gary Stein's 1st Amendment rights were being violated by the Marine Corps.

"I don't believe Sgt. Stein did anything other than engage in political speech," said the ACLU's David Loy. "Since the days of Valley Forge, I seriously doubt that there haven't been members of the armed forces who haven't complained about their government."

Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation said he believes Stein was targeted by the Obama administration.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/aclu-others-defending-marine-who-criticized-obama.html

[atreides1]

1. He's right

There were several solidiers who complained at Valley Forge...if I remember right the ringleaders were shot!

This is the problem with civilians, they have little to no concept of what the meaning of good order and discipline entails.

Military members always bitch, it's part of the lifestyle, it's expected...this Marine took it to a public forum under the guise of a Tea Party affiliated group.

Now what would this NCO have done if one of the troops under his command had done exactly what he did, and it was directed at him...he would had that Marine up on charges so fast.

He rolled the dice and lost...now he should just man up and take responsibility for his actions, that's what a good Marine would!

[Politicalboi]

2. I think the ACLU is wrong here

It's not free speech when you work for the military. He was actually putting the Presidents life in danger with his bullshit birther claim. Someone is more apt to believe a soldier about the President than a civilian.

[Uncle Joe]

3. As a former Marine, this is one of the rare cases in which I disagree with the ACLU.

Stein's behavior was most unbecoming of a Marine, he directly challenged the chain of command during war time and he did it in a most public venue where it could do the most damage.

By referring to the Commander in Chief as the "enemy," Stein's actions could only damage troop moral and any sense of Esprit de Corps.

"On Facebook postings, Stein had called Obama a coward and an enemy, vowed not to salute him, declared he would not follow orders from Obama that he considered illegal, and urged the president's electoral defeat."

Thanks for the thread, The Northerner.

[DevonRex]

10. He called Obama the enemy? And a coward?

Oh my. I had read that he said he wouldn't follow orders but not the other stuff. And he's directly engaging in politics there, on a public FB group, as a Marine. There is no defense for that.

[truebrit71]

4. Yeah, sorry but the ACLU is wrong on this one...

He was a marine that bad-mouthed the Commander-in-chief, and said he would refuse a direct order. Under the Military Laws he committed a crime. Game over.

[cthulu2016]

9. The ACLU does not simply defer to the law

The ACLU challenges laws, so the observation that something is against the UCMC is not dispositive.

You could just as easily say, "Yeah, sorry but the ACLU is wrong on this one... He was a teacher that taught evolution. Under the Laws of Tennessee he committed a crime. Game over."

[truebrit71]

12. And they are still wrong.

You simply cannot have the rank and file in the military picking and choosing which orders they will or will not follow.

[cthulu2016]

17. ...

It is not a question "the rank and file in the military picking and choosing which orders they will or will not follow."

It is a question of whether regulations and orders based on them are permissible within the constitution of the United States, which supercedes the UCMC.

It is a legal question that is periodically asked and addressed within the context of law.

You can say it's a valid regulation, and that's fine. You cannot, however, say the regulation is valid because it exists, which was where you started.

Personally, I have no problem with it. My issue was with the idea that the ACLU is categorically wrong when defending the interests of people who have violated an existing law or regulation. Most causes the ACLU has ever taken up involved persons who had violated an extant law or regulation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Hell, they should have heard what I had to say about LBJ when I was in.

I'm a member of the ACLU and an ex-marine. I'm with the ACLU on this one.

[Puzzledtraveller]

7. Ex-marine?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Ex. As in "no longer", "not a lifer", "eat the apple and fuck the corps".

1961-1965

You?

[Oasis_]

18. I've never heard a former marine

refer to themselves as "ex"

Oasis

[11 Bravo]

20. Nor have I, and I have been around the military all of my life.

I have one marine uncle, a marine cousin, and a marine nephew-in-law (he's married to my niece). None of them are still in the service, but rest assured, none of them are "ex"-marines.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Does that make me a celebrity?

[11 Bravo]

32. Nah, you're just an outlier. You want to be a celebrity "ex"-marine? Think ...

Lee Oswald. That boy is a FAMOUS president disliker!

on edit: The UCMJ is unambiguous. Please don't pretend that this is a "free speech" issue. You took the same oath that I did. If you had your fingers crossed, it doesn't matter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. And, you, of course, never criticized your superiors?

Barracks have changed a lot since I was in if that's the case.

The UCMJ should be changed to allow those ordered by their commander to kill and die to allow for criticism of the bosses.

[11 Bravo]

39. My C-in-C was Nixon, and in the field, I said a LOT of shit, but ...

if Facebook had existed in 1970, I would NOT have gone on-line and called him "a coward" or "the enemy". Had I done so I would have been rightly cashiered.

If you can't see the difference, then you took an oath which you clearly did not comprehend.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Did you go to your local paper and make sure civilians knew about this?

That is the difference. We all bitch of the chain, we all do... it's part of it. And everybody knows it...

But you were told NOT to do this the way this sergeant did.

I know you know about good order and discipline... and the ACLU is wrong on this. He is lucky he is not thrown out, after a reduction in rank and some time in the brig.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Screw "good order and discipline". That's what the bosses want.

I disagreed with the clamps put on us when we were in but wasn't stupid enough to go looking for trouble. And, I certainly disagree with what the idiot has to say but, the rules governing what GI's can say about their commanders, especially the ones that can put them in harms way and/or kill people they don't know, have nothing against, and might even like, are just plain wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. You may say screw it

but it has it's role. I guarantee you it kept my kids alive.

And no, it was not trying to kill and be killed, but they were at times the ones being hunted.

So yes it has a role.

You were a draftee. This sergeant was not. I understand draftees getting angrier about it by the way.

This is also a crucial difference.

IMHO, and I do not care if the CiC is Obama, Bush or the left handed widget, he deserved a full court martial, a year in the brig and reduction to E-1 and a dishonorable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. I wasn't a draftee. Joining up didn't make me a slave or hired killer.

He "deserves a court martial". How about the bosses who order the GI's to kill innocents on command? How about the politicians who make the wars possible. Are they to be above criticism from the poor sods who they command to commit atrocities?

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Read what he did

He did NOT complaint of HIS DIRECT CHAIN giving him a direct order that was ilegal. For god sakes, YOU KNOW THE UCMJ. If you receive such an order you are not just supposed to disobey it, but you SHOULD DISOBEY IT.

You are not talking to somebody who does not know this. For the record I DISOBEYED a direct and very ilegal order, so try that one with somebody who is clueless. In time of war I COULD HAVE FACED a wall and a firing squad.

What he did was make a POLITICAL statement, which in no military I know off is kosher or allowed. You do understand the difference, though from your posts, I am no longer sure if you do, or you pretend not to.

[zappaman]

41. OMG

[DefenseLawyer]

6. I think it is worth discussing

and I think it is a good thing for the ACLU to get in there and advocate the pure "free speech" position. I think the guy, as a guy, has the right to criticize anyone he wants. But this isn't Nam, Smokey. There are rules. I think the rules are spelled out pretty clearly when you join our all volunteer Marine Corps. Chain of command is a vital part of a properly functioning military. If you want to criticize your superiors the military probably isn't for you. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

[DevonRex]

8. Sorry, but the Marine formed a FB group and declared he would not follow his CIC's orders.

He was told repeatedly to tone down his remarks by his superior officers. He disobeyed. He was charged and is being discharged from the service. The verdict was correct. Now he can go on Fox News and be a RW racist there and make money that way.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Where's the unrec button?

Not fooled.

[stevenleser]

14. Everyone who enlists or commissions into the military knows about this and other restrictions

on your civil rights. You do not have the right to be wherever you want to be, you have to be on duty at your station per the orders of your chain of command. You cannot disobey lawful orders, you cannot speak out publicly against anyone in your chain of command.

This is explained before you take the oath, and it is explained during your initial training.

We have an all volunteer force. He could have gotten out long before this if he objected to the restrictions.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Do you say the same thing about Lt. Dan Choi?

Is it at all possible that he was aware of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy before coming out on the Rachel Maddow Show?

[11 Bravo]

22. I said the exact same thing about Dan Choi.

He knew the deal, and he broke the rules. That's why I consider him to be a fucking hero! Civil disobedience, rightly or wrongly, has consequences. Otherwise it would remain entirely the purview of keyboard commandos.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yes, Lt. Dan Choi broke regs

why they threw him out of the service. The ACLU did not take the case either.

The ACLU should NOT take this case either.

[Robb]

25. That's an interesting question.

But you're comparing a "fitness to serve" policy to a soldier's statement of refusal to follow future orders.

[stevenleser]

31. To which 'same thing' are you referring? Did he insult his commanders? Apples to Oranges

Beyond the discrimination,which is a big issue, Don't Ask, Don't tell, Don't investigate (many people forget about this third and last component) was plagued by vagueness and violated by the military itself on hundreds of occasions. The branches did in fact investigate outside the bounds of the policy, etc.

You are comparing a straightforward policy that does not discriminate to a discriminatory policy that was vague, arbitrarily applied and in many cases clearly violated by the armed forces.

[guitar man]

15. I disagree with the ACLU

There's an old saying in the military "we're here to defend democracy, not to practice it". Practicing politics in uniform is and to my knowledge always has been against regulations.

[cbdo2007]

16. I don't see how this is a free speech violation....

Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech.

This isn't congress, nor is it a local or state government enforcing a law. It is his employer holding him responsible for disparaging his boss.

[white_wolf]

21. There is a problem with this analogy.

His employer is part of the government, so they are bound by the 1st Amendment. At least most government organizations are bound, the military may very well be different. However, by your analogy a member of the IRS wouldn't be allowed to criticize the President which is simply not true. As for this case, I tend to be an absolutist when it comes to civil liberties, but the Supreme Court has never endorsed that view, though several Justices have.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Not the military and the UCMJ

which obviously he slept through in BASIC, is quite clear about this.

Of course I do no

I don't expect the ACLU to understand this... and since very few people serve any longer, I don't expect MOST civilians to get this either.

He is lucky he is not facing some time in the brig... quite frankly, and a reduction in rank.

[stevenleser]

34. There is no problem. IRS agents do not sign a document and swear they will obey the rules in UCMJ.

You are informed about this before you enlist or commission, and in your initial training, these special rules contained in the UCMJ are drilled into your head.

You can agree to curtail your rights by signing contracts to that effect. That is what you do when you enter the armed forces. It is a serious decision not to be taken lightly. If you find yourself unhappy with the rules after time, you can get out. This person re-enlisted twice. I dont understand how anyone can have any sympathy for him after twice re-enlisting and accepting promotion to NCO status.

He knew what the rules were all along and chose to violate them. There is no flood of people in the military doing this.

[sendero]

27. I believe in the ACLU..

... but I disagree with them on this point.

And to go out on a bit of a limb, they are going to accomplish NOTHING here because these rules are absolutely necessary and the jackass was warned to cut it out and he didn't.

He's a dipshit and he got what was coming to him. I only hope he doesn't parlay it into some kind of job, putting up drywall would seem to be about his speed.

[maxrandb]

28. It's simple

If you support the ACLU in this fight, then you would also support them defending a person's right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded Movie Theatre that was not currently ablaze.

This is the same thing. Those of us that have served understand what is meant by the term "maintaining good order and discipline". As the Command-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President is this Marines boss and superior. He has the option of getting out of the service if he feels he can't serve under this President...and it appears he's made that decision, or in this case, the folks responsible for "maintaining good order and discipline" have made that decision for him.

One of the reasons our nation has survived where other's have failed is due to civilian control of the military, and the peaceful passing of power from one administration to the next.

This Marine telling the President to essentially "fuck-off you commie bastard", is no different than him telling his Gunny Seargent, Top Seargent, Division Officer, or Commanding Officer to "fuck-off you commie bastard".

I've served under Presidents going back to Reagan, but to me, it wasn't a particular President, or individual I was serving...it was the United States I was serving.

If this Marine can't make that distinction, that's his problem, and he needs to go!

Service to country is a privilege...not a right.

[MrScorpio]

35. His jobs was to protect free speech, not practice it

When you're in uniform, you have to adhere to good order and discipline.

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. The problem isn't so much the criticism...

...as it is the insubordination. Stein posted: "As an active Marine I say, 'Screw Obama' and I will not follow orders from him." He also apparently posted encouragement that others disobey. No military in teh world is going to tolerate encouraging insubordination.