Author Topic: Marine faces discharge for disparaging remarks on the President on Facebook  (Read 3962 times)

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,217
  • APS Risk Manager
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.

_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Have the New Black Panthers put a bounty on him, yet?....
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,037
. . . 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.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
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.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 03:41:27 PM by RevDisk »
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,217
  • APS Risk Manager
^^^ Geez, and I thought everyone loved the Secretary of Transportation. 
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
^^^ 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.
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

geronimotwo

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,796
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.
make the world idiot proof.....and you will have a world full of idiots. -g2

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,841
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.
 ;)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
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


« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 02:42:42 PM by fistful »
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson