Marine who criticized Obama on Facebook should be dismissed: panel

Comments (46)
Anthonykovic wrote:

Unless the military has good reason to believe this Marine was seriously planning harm or sedition, he should be left alone.
America is a free country, I think, where everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Is the US government and military trolling the internet spying on citizens’ Facebook pages? Shame ….

Apr 06, 2012 11:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
InMotion wrote:

Being free to express your opinion does not mean that there is no penalty – especially if you are speaking out against someone over you in your job – regardless of whether you are in the military or a civilian job.

Apr 06, 2012 11:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

This young man is entitled to his opinions, just like everyone else. Unless his job performance warrants a discharge, I say leave him the heck alone!

Apr 07, 2012 5:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
justinolcb wrote:

military personnel are obliged to die protecting the very freedoms they cannot enjoy?!? Really?!?

Apr 07, 2012 8:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jorge62 wrote:

Leave him alone.

Apr 07, 2012 8:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
johnIX wrote:

A russian joke from the communist era. An American and Russian discuse:
R: “And we have the greatest leader of the world!”
A: “Well, but I can criticize my president without fear of punishment.”
R: “Big deal! I can also criticize you president without fear of punishment.”

Apr 07, 2012 8:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
andy_txn wrote:

When you join the the armed forces of the United States, you take a oath to defend the Constitution & follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Refusing to take orders is punishable by court marshal .Toe the line or face the punishment, especially as a Marine.

Apr 07, 2012 9:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

Freedom of speech means he won’t be thrown in prison for speaking his mind. It does not mean he won’t perhaps lose his job.

Apr 07, 2012 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

I recognize that the military must retain it’s tough disciplinary standards, and rightfully so. However, it remains a shame that soldiers (& sailors) can’t speak their mind on politics.

Apr 07, 2012 12:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RedRaider65 wrote:

Isn’t it a shame, a Marine spoke his mind and gets in trouble. “”Marines and all other military members swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States as well as to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which restricts political activities”" It states they swear to an oath to defend the CONSITUTION, but I guess the “Commandor in Chief” doesn’t have to. Since when is speaking, considered not following orders ? Lets get this “Political Correctness” out of the military.

Apr 07, 2012 12:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

He’s not banned from criticizing the president–his boss; he’s banned from publicly doing so as a member of the miltiary. He CHOSE to make a page called “Armed Forces Tea Party.” You can’t talk about your boss in such a public manner without consequences, in any job. But this guy made a point to talk about HIS boss despite being told to tone it down. He made his bed. I wasn’t happy about Bush when I was in the military, but guess what? He was my boss so I kept my mouth shut until I got out of the military.

Apr 07, 2012 12:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

If one has the gall to go on the offensive with words against one’s own boss, he should expect to be terminated. Now that he’s no longer a Marine, it’s fine he say all he wishes against President Obama, all day long if he wishes.

Apr 07, 2012 12:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I am no fan of Obama, but he is our elected leader and all soldiers must obey his orders.

Apr 07, 2012 1:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Blackcat53 wrote:

Hasan took the same oath as the young marine BUT he is still in the miliatry and drawing full pay, so I think the young marine should be left alone!

Apr 07, 2012 2:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bdkennedy1 wrote:

Glad to see our 1st Amendment is alive and well.

Apr 07, 2012 2:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Radical_1 wrote:

I see that most comments here come from the worst kind of people, the type that don’t know a thing about the Military, but have an opinion and want to throw their $.02 in anyhow! So if you’ve never served then shut the hell up, you have no idea what you’re talking about. This Marine deserves a DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE and about a year at Ft. Levenworth too. It might be ok to have an opinion in the military, but you better be careful who you express it to and going on Facebook was one of the dumbest things he could have done, WHAT AN IDIOT! While serving in the US Armed Services the President no matter if you like or agree with him is your Commander-in-Chief and the highest leader of the US Armed Services- PERIOD, and you have no right(BTW, you’re not protected by all of the Constitution while in the military as that would absolutely kill the chain of command) to say that you will not follow his orders- especially publicly, UNLESS those orders go against the Constitution and in that case you’d better make sure that you’re 100% right.

Apr 07, 2012 2:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dean5150 wrote:

Isn’t this how Hitler started with the nazi’s. Speak out against me and you will be shot or sent to a prison camp. That was the nazi way, we dont need to go down the same road. By stating that he wont follow orders and actually not following orders are two different actions. Maybe a drop in rank, but to boot him out of the corp is not right. He has a right to free speach. During viet nam I remember quite a few guys say they wouldn’t follow Johnstons orders, but they still stayed in and in fact followed any orders.

Apr 07, 2012 5:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bill1942 wrote:

“should be dismissed from the military with a less-than-honorable discharge”. Well, at least you can bet that he is not gay.

Apr 07, 2012 5:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SLUG863 wrote:

Wait…so I can go on Facebook and say I won’t follow my bosses orders and not get fired if my employer sees it?

Apr 07, 2012 5:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

It s so much more complex an issue than it migt appear to most folks outside the Armed Forces. Since the American Civil War, there has been a principle within the Armed Forces of not criticizing the leadership of the Armed Forces Asa memer of those forces. First, keep in mind that every member of the military are par of the Exective Branch of the Federal Government. This is the historic basis for what is called the chain of command, and why the President is constitutionally the Comander-in-Chief. That is also the legal foundation of the Oath of Office that every member of the Armed Forces take, which includes the promise to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and of the Officers appointed over me…”. OK, but why is this so important and why not “ease up” a bit? During the Civil War, desertion was a major problem for both sides. While the common wisdom is that all soldiers grip, when taken to high enough levels, it can cause disaffection and dessention in the ranks”, which can lead to failure to obey lawful orders or combat refusals. Needless to say that those things can not only cause defeat, but can needlessly cause the deaths of those soldiers so effected. There were many examples in the Civil War of such failures. From those beginnings, the principle has to evolve to reflect mdern warfare. As a member of the Exective Branch of the government, you represent the people of the United States both inside the country and when overseas. Therefore, you may not represent the country as dishonorable or disunited. To do so gives comfort to our enemies. Military leaders have tried to walk the line between behavior that is private and that which is public. The current interpretation of the principle is if he hadn’t called it the site “Armed Forces” Tea Party, and had been clearly speaking as a private citizen, we would not be here. As it is, he is getting the exact same discharge given many times.

Apr 07, 2012 6:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Apologies for posting unedited previous post. I hit post button before cleaning up spelling and punctuation.

Apr 07, 2012 7:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
explorer08 wrote:

America is NOT a free country where everyone is entitled to express their opinions – - at least in the workplace. Working for AT&T and Lucent Technologies over several decades I’ve seen plenty of fellow employees that were fired because they criticized executive leadership. It’s just the way it is. It is not about free speech, it is about undermining leadership: a huge no-no to any thinking individual who wants to keep their job. This marine is toast and should be.

Apr 07, 2012 9:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

DD without time?

Apr 07, 2012 9:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Use your first amendment rights and talk about your boss on Facebook. Go ahead. Be sure to put your company name in your handle. Then try to sue the company for terminating your employment. It’s very simple, anyone stupid enough to do that is asking to be fired. It’s like drunk emailing, stop, think and do not post negative information on the internet, same thing. It is likely that he had the option to stop and was given an order to “cease and desist” and he declined it. The military is not so strict that he wasn’t given a choice, unless of course he was below average, then it’s likely the Corp jumped at the chance to get rid of him.

Apr 07, 2012 10:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
taxcorps2 wrote:

It is not only about freedom of speech. It is about following orders in the U.S. military.

Apr 07, 2012 10:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
taxcorps2 wrote:

Radical 1 is entirely correct.
Politics and the military don’t mix. Most of those who are or have been in the military understand that. Many who have not been in the military, or won’t stop to seriously consider the matter, do not understand the implications of just turning the other cheek to comments such as Stein’s when many other’s lives, indeed, the free world itself, could be on the line. You cannot have order and control over any situation while allowing the attitude that Stein displays to have its way. He said he would not follow orders. He is in the military. Enough said.

Just look at the discipline problems in high schools on down to Kindergarten, created by the Laisse Faire parents, and you will see the result of “let the little angels just do and say whatever they want to. They can do no wrong.”

Apr 07, 2012 10:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
taxcorps2 wrote:

SLUG863 said:
“Wait…so I can go on Facebook and say I won’t follow my bosses orders and not get fired if my employer sees it?”

You just answered you own question, but obviously you do not understand the implications of your own question or the answer. You want a job, you want a paycheck, but you don’t want to do what your employer assigns you to do? You deserve to be fired nitwit.

Apr 07, 2012 10:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
taxcorps2 wrote:

RedRaider65 said:

“It states they swear to an oath to defend the CONSITUTION, but I guess the “Commandor in Chief” doesn’t have to. Since when is speaking, considered not following orders ?”

You guess wrong. Your inference is that the Commander in Chief is not or has not followed and defended the constitution. (I am only assuming you meant Commander instead of Commandor, and CONSTITUTION rather than CONSITUTION, but of what importance are details to someone that does not see the importance of military personnel following orders and displaying the attitude that they are ready and willing to follow orders?)
When is the occasion that you are speaking of that the Commander in Chief did not defend the Constitution?

Was it Democrat Harry Truman, when he gave the orders to drop the atomic bombs on Japan because Japan insisted on carrying on a war, with more lost lives, when it was obvious they had lost?

Apr 07, 2012 10:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:

Sorry, mac, but when you signed up one of the things you signed away was your unfettered 1st Amendment free speech right.

Apr 08, 2012 2:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JBltn wrote:

Good! Oorah!

Apr 08, 2012 4:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
schill1938 wrote:

Thank You Gary Stein

Apr 08, 2012 10:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jertho wrote:

he is in the military, he stated he would not follow orders from his commander in chief. its not simple free speech, its borderline insubordination. the military frowns on that sort of thing.

Apr 08, 2012 10:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sjtom wrote:

Obama is one step closer to the dictatorship he desires.

Apr 08, 2012 10:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Peteo wrote:

One Marine defends the Constitution, and his government, led by a constitution hating president punishes him
Wake up America.

Apr 08, 2012 10:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
enomboulus wrote:

Military members give up their rights to some extent and are subject to the UCMJ.

Apr 08, 2012 11:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse

As long as he wasnt in uniform he has a right to make his opinion. Saying he is an enemy to america is not any form of threat, leak of confidential information (because we already know this), or anything of the sort. He was on his personal facebook on his free time not as a representation of the military but as a representation of himself. This facebook mess needs to stop. I’m about ready to delete mine

Apr 08, 2012 5:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Violate orders, get discharged.

DOD Directive 1344.10 is Constitutional AND a good idea.

An independent, non-partisan military is good for Democracy.

Apr 08, 2012 6:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

sjtom and Peteo; You both miss the point. This guy was insubrodinate when he said he would not follow orders from the President. He was insubordinate when he bashed the president on this Tea party Page.

Throughout the history of the US, these have been punishable offenses. This does not make the President a dictator as he is not the one punishing this guy.

This Marine made his bed by knowingly and willingly breaking rules that every military man and woman knows and must abide by. In war time, a soldier declaring that he will not serve and follow orders would receive far worse punishment then a dis-honorable discharge.

If soldiers did not have to follow orders and obey the chain of command, our military would disolve into a useless social club rather than a force to defend this country and impose national policies abroad.

Apr 08, 2012 9:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

How many soldiers bluster-up and state they’re not going to follow orders if given, only to turn around and follow orders when demanded? There is nothing at all criminal in refusing to obey unlawful commands. It is more or less expected of a soldier NOT to follow commands they know to be unlawful. Mountain and molehill here.

Apr 09, 2012 8:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
alavol wrote:

For those of you that are defending the military because this soldier spoke out against his boss well that’s a two way street. Obama works for us, the US citizen, we are the President’s boss and if this soldier goes then Obama should go also. Obama continues to disobey the oath he took when he was sworn in as President and continues to lie to the very people that employee him.

Apr 09, 2012 10:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Buelligan wrote:

This was his job. The commander in chief is his boss. He stated he wouldn’t do what his boss tells him to do. Sounds like something you’d get fired for in the private sector as well as the military.

Apr 09, 2012 2:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
whome.doyou wrote:

What’s next CIA and Secret Service agents should also be allowed to do what they want to? No. He signed up to regard a certain set of rules – and he disobeyed the rules.

Let’s stop trying to tell institutions that set ground rules on how to operate. We’re civilians and we’re entitled to our opinions, in the military that’s not always how it works for active service men and women. He accepted it and now he should also accept the outcome of his actions/violation.

Apr 09, 2012 4:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
davec.0121 wrote:

He should be discharged for, among other things, being really dumb. The regulations regarding political activity are very clear and specific. Going on a public forum like Facebook (equivalent to publich speech), specifically identifying himself as a marine, and then saying he wouldn’t obey an order from the commander-in-chief is a clear violation of those regulations. In addition, having been warned previously, he should have known better. Free speech is a not an applicable defense since, as everyone who enters the military knows (or should know), you surrender many of your rights when you enlist, including unfettered free speech, among others. It’s necessary for the maintenence of discipline and order, and to preserve the chain of command. He was warned, he should have known better, and he still deliberately chose to violate the regulations. He has no case.

Apr 09, 2012 6:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JulsMan wrote:

You Obama haters are irrational! Just because you don’t like him doesn’t make him a dictator or treasonous. You forget that the majority of your fellow citizens voted for him. Does that mean we hate America and want a dictatorship? I’m voting Obama in 2012 but if Romney wins one thing you won’t hear from me is questioning Romney’s patriotism or calling him treasonous because i disagree with his views. Real men don’t throw tantrums. Obama’s been like every other president … he’s had successes and failures and through it all he’s had the ugliest opposition I’ve seen in my 35 years.

Apr 09, 2012 6:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cruce wrote:

They should first make sure Obama is holding up the Constitution!! The marine served in Iraq and it sounds like he has done more to honor this country than Obama!

Apr 09, 2012 8:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Wulff wrote:

Exactly what the rules say a soldier must do govern this question. A soldier in the US military is a special person in many ways and is held to a specific set of rules and regulations. Free speech is ever a thorny issue under these circumstances. This individual has had problems with that in the past, and they continue. Good luck on that.

Apr 09, 2012 10:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.