Marine in deep kim-chi for internet activity
Tman sends us a link to an article about Camp Pendleton Marine Sgt. Gary Stein, who started a Facebook presence called “Armed Forces Tea Party” in which he expressed his opinions which were against the current administration’s policies. Apparently, his command told him that what he was doing was against DoD policy. After Stein did a self-evaluation, he determined for himself that he was within the guidelines of the policy and relaunched his Facebook page. Now, he’s surprised that he’s under the gun again;
Last week, he said his superiors told him he could not use social media sites on government computers after he posted the message stating he would not follow unlawful orders of the president.
Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.
In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.
Another Marine alerted his command about the statement, Stein said.
Stein said he respects the office of the president, but he does not agree with Obama’s policies. He said he is within his rights to speak up.
See, here’s the thing; his command told him he was doing something wrong, but the shithouse lawyer decided that he wasn’t. When you start a group, movement or march that gives the impression that you’re speaking in an official capacity (as an agent of the government), well, you’re going to get your ass in a sling. You have a right to speak your mind, just not in uniform, or as an internet presence that operates under the cloak of a military member.
When it comes to the military, if they told me I was doing something wrong and that I should stop, whether I thought I was right or not, I stopped doing it. I just didn’t need the hassle of drawing attention to myself. There is no right way or wrong way, there’s only the military’s way.
Stein sounds like he’s under the influence of those dickweeds at Oathkeepers. No one needs to remind the rest of the planet that we took an oath and stand by it…and we certainly don’t need to join a group of Paulians to make it known.
I hope Oathkeepers will pick up Stein’s legal bills and keep him in pie while he’s sitting in confinement.
Category: Military issues, Oath Keepers, Ron Paul
There are a couple of things around this case that disturb me. First is I agree with your pronouncement that once your chain of command says you might want to rethink that decision you would be well served to listen. I know civilians don’t grasp the fact that members of the military do not enjoy all of the liberties and rights granted in the constitution to the extent that they do. That is why those who can’t comply with the restrictions get out after their initial hitch. I will say however that in my time as a civilian I have never met a more restrictive bunch of goons then those called homeowners Association. I would never own a home that came under their jurisdiction.
Second service members don’t really get to pick who their boss will be. I served under Presidents Carter to GHW Bush. I have my favorites and lets just say I will never vote for a guy to be president if his last name starts with ‘C’.
Third, this guy may have simply been fed up with the Marines and wanted out and saw this as his opportunity. This is a very bad sign since it could lead to others imitating him in hopes of accomplishing the same thing. I know most of my career the other NCO’s used to kid me that I could walk into the CO’s office smoking a joint with a martini in the other hand, plop down in his chair and put my feet on his desk and I would be given a 3 day pass to regain my composure. If you play with fire you need to be prepared to get burned. I hope this doesn’t inspire a rash of copycats.
And about those Oathkeepers, yeah they are Paulians with a uniform.
Last week, he said his superiors told him he could not use social media sites on government computers after he posted the message stating he would not follow unlawful orders of the president.
That’s a whole boatload of stupid right there. Frankly, I’m surprised DoD allows access to social media through their servers with the virus issues, etc., that they have.
Grunt, I don’t get to pick who my boss will be either–but that doesn’t mean I should bad-mouth them in public. That kind of shit is beyond stupid, in fact.
Yeah, I don’t see this guy’s transition to civilian life going very well.
Too weird. What you do with your own property on your own time is your business. What you do with corporate or government (or any other employer) equipment when that employer is paying you to do something else, well, that really is his/her business. Literally.
I’m going to have to come on in (no surprise) and defend this guy. There is nothing in the regs saying you can’t say you think the President is a bad leader. You can’t use “contemptuous language.” Nor is he wrong to say he won’t follow unlawful orders. NO ONE who has served should follow unlawful orders. It’s in your oath-you agree to follow the orders as they fall under the regs.
Now where this guy might have screwed the pooch is by failing to give a disclaimer that these were his own opinions and don’t reflect that of the military service. You know, like CJ and I and some others had to do for a while.
According to reports, this is just the poster child for discontent with the POTUS in the Marine ranks.
Of course, the use of government computers for personal and political activity is against UCMJ and policies.
As Jonn says, the tipping point is when government equipment is used, or a political position of the military may be inferred by the public. An off-duty service member on his own soapbox has a right to 1st Amendment expressions against the politicians, so long as it is clear that it is HIS (and not the military’s) position.
He can’t do that in uniform, nor in a manner that implies it is a position endorsed by the military.
Frankly though, in recent years, it has appeared that the top eschelons of Generals have been equally guilty of crossing that line.
The situation is not that different in the commercial world, folks. Ask any of those individuals who’ve been fired from their job because they posted something on Facebook/YouTube/Twitter/etc . . . . or a personal website that (1) reflected badly on their employer, and (2) their employer found out about. The only real difference is that those in the commercial world didn’t risk an intermediate stop in the brig/CCF/Leavenworth between firing and unemployment.
I wouldn’t defend him, Army Sergeant. He’s going down the Lakin primrose path of stupidity. This guy is incredibly unlikely to ever get an order directly from the POTUS, so his claiming that he will obey the “illegal orders” of the POTUS is nothing but posturing. But he is quite likely to receive an order from his immediate chain of command – like Lakin did – to do a perfectly lawful act, and wrongfully refuse on the basis of it being “illegal”.
In fact, he’s already done exactly that by ignoring orders and restoring his Facebook page. That’s why he’s in trouble.
You wanna play bet yer bars/stripes like this, it’s a damn good idea to consult a competent military lawyer first.
So… He says he will not follow UNLAWFUL orders and everyone hammers him for it? Yet your responsibility in the military is to follow only LAWFUL orders a distinction each soldier has to make for himself. Yeah…. Toxic leadership “don’t question it just do it” and ten they hang you out to dry.
@8 Um, explain to me how its any Soldiers judgement call to interpret violating constitutional rights?
“He would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.”
ML3: Oh – kay. Lakin tried that when he was ordered to Afghanistan. Didn’t work out too well.
The point here is that an illegal order must be at face value unlawful – e.g., an order to commit an obviously illegal act. An example would be to “take that prisoner out behind the hooch and shoot him”; that’s an order to commit murder, which is inherently illegal.
An order from your military superior – or in writing from personnel – to do something that is inherently a part of military duties (like “get your ass on that plane and deploy” or “put on riot gear and get out there to defend the installation’s perimeter”) is virtually always a lawful order. It doesn’t matter what you think about the morality or legality of the war or operation in question. That’s a question reserved for battles in Federal court at far above the grade of a Marine Sergeant.
The thing about this sotry is he seems to be spinning it as a persecution issue. Every comment I’ve read about this story, other than some of the comments here, are about lawful orders or Stein’s personal political opinion. That’s got nothing to do with it. Stein was using his position as a Marine to make his opinion seem like it carried more weight (they way MoH winner Dakota Meyer did in endorsing Rick Perry, and Cpl Jessie Thornton did in endorsing Paul, and plenty of other military and former military members have done). The difference is that Stein is still an active (or reserve?) member of the military, and the regs clearly state that you can’t use your uniform to sway anything politically. I’m surprised Thorson didn’t get hammered too (or did he?).
As for lawful or unlawful orders, that’s another discussion. I think someone above said something about how some buck sergeant Marine probably wouldn’t be getting orders directly from the president, and the buck sergeant is simply making a political point about the president from inside of his dress blues.
Uh, Bah? You do realize Dakota Meyer is a civilian now, and was at the time of his endorsement, yes?
And the Sergeant in question is being, as Jonn said, a barracks lawyer, and is going to get his dick hammered flat for disobeying a lawful order (not using DoD assets among them).
Bah Bodenkurk: As far as I can tell, CPL Jesse Thorton is still under investigation for his foolishness in appearing at the Paul rally in uniform, and for making public statements in favor of a political candidate while in uniform, for possible violations of DoD policy/regulation/Federal law (Hatch Act). And if I recall correctly, his stupidity has already caused the Army to put out reminders/guidance/warnings to all soldiers concerning policy and law concerning the issue of in-uniform political activity.
I’m late to this conversation but I agree with you Jonn.