Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on March 28, 2012, 01:05:40 PM

Title: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: MillCreek on March 28, 2012, 01:05:40 PM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/marine-who-bashed-obama-on-facebook-faces-dismissal-hearing/1#.T3NChNnlmX0

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the service member.  I recall that the military has been doing this for many years, across a number of different Administrations.  It is easier to detect now with the service members foolish enough to record such opinions on social media or sending mass emails. 

He may have missed that lecture about saluting the uniform, not the person.  Last time I checked, any sitting President is the CinC and worthy of military courtesy on that alone.

Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: seeker_two on March 28, 2012, 02:42:09 PM
Have the New Black Panthers put a bounty on him, yet?....
Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: HankB on March 28, 2012, 03:09:26 PM
. . . Last time I checked, any sitting President is the CinC and worthy of requires military courtesy on that alone.
FIFY.

Some years back - it was during the Clinton Administration I believe - a soldier on deployment was asked what he throught about his mission orders; his response was something along the lines of "Sorry sir, UCMJ Article XYZ prohibits me from responding to that question."  The reporter went on to explain that particular article had to do with prohibiting contemptuous words towards officials and superior officers, meaning the guy didn't like the orders or the guy who gave them, but he couldn't say anything about it so long as he was in uniform. So he effectively got the message across without getting court-martialed.
Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: RevDisk on March 28, 2012, 03:38:19 PM
FIFY.

Some years back - it was during the Clinton Administration I believe - a soldier on deployment was asked what he throught about his mission orders; his response was something along the lines of "Sorry sir, UCMJ Article XYZ prohibits me from responding to that question."  The reporter went on to explain that particular article had to do with prohibiting contemptuous words towards officials and superior officers, meaning the guy didn't like the orders or the guy who gave them, but he couldn't say anything about it so long as he was in uniform. So he effectively got the message across without getting court-martialed.

Article 88 and 89. I remember, because I confessed to MPs that I violated this part of the UCMJ by making contemptuous words against the Secretary of Transportation. Crafty MPs noted that Article 88 was not applicable, and nor was 89.

I was heartbroken.
Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: MillCreek on March 28, 2012, 04:09:40 PM
^^^ Geez, and I thought everyone loved the Secretary of Transportation. 
Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: RevDisk on March 28, 2012, 05:14:58 PM
^^^ Geez, and I thought everyone loved the Secretary of Transportation. 

88 is only applicable to statements made by officers.  89 is only applicable to statements made at officers.

So technically, AFAIK, it's legit for enlisted to insult any government persons not in the chain of command.  Except for Article 134, which makes anything or everything a crime. "All conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces", which means whatever your CO wants it to be.
Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: geronimotwo on March 29, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
the main reason i didn't sign up when i was younger was that you essentially lose all the rights that you are fighting for.   it never made sense to me.
Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: RoadKingLarry on March 29, 2012, 01:10:25 PM
Quote
89 is only applicable to statements made at officers

Ah, good ole article 89.
I have it good authority that telling your LCDR Dept. head what you think of him and his policy in stereotypical "sailor language", in the Ward Room, in the presence of the XO, WILL get you wrote up on art. 89. I also have it on good authority that on rare occasions being truthful and right can be enough of a positive defense to get the charges dismissed.
 ;)
Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 31, 2012, 02:39:20 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/03/30/military-excuses-muslim-soldiers-political-speech-in-uniform

I don't know if this guy (Nasser Abdo) said something out of bounds, or not. It doesn't seem like political speech, so much as an explanation of his religious beliefs conflicting with his orders.

Of course, then he got caught with child pron and accused of plotting to kill American soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naser_Jason_Abdo


Title: Re: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook
Post by: kgbsquirrel on March 31, 2012, 02:41:30 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/03/30/military-excuses-muslim-soldiers-political-speech-in-uniform


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naser_Jason_Abdo





 [popcorn]