Gary Stein Case: Judge Won't Block Discharge Effort Against Marine Who Called Obama 'Enemy'

[Weapon X]

Gary Stein Case: Judge Won't Block Discharge Effort Against Marine Who Called Obama 'Enemy'

SAN DIEGO -- A federal judge denied a request Friday to block military discharge proceedings against a Camp Pendleton Marine who called President Barack Obama an enemy on Facebook.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff ruled the military has the right to respond to Sgt. Gary Stein's online comments in a case that has called into question the Pentagon's policies regarding social media and the limits regarding the speech of active duty military personnel.

A military panel has recommended to a general that Stein be given an other-than-honorable discharge that also would strip him of all benefits.

A general must still decide the outcome, but Stein's lawyers argued Friday in federal court in San Diego that Huff had the right to intervene because the ongoing proceedings go too far and are chilling the speech of Stein and other service members.

Attorney J. Mark Brewer told Huff the entire process violates the First Amendment, which federal courts have the right to uphold.

Huff disagreed, calling Stein's postings "truly troubling." Service members have had their speech limited since the Civil War, especially if their comments are believed to disrupt good order and discipline.

The judge pointed out Stein's March 1 comments on a Facebook page used by Marine Corps meteorologists in which the sergeant stated, "Screw Obama and I will not follow all orders from him."

Stein went on to state that he supports and defends the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

"Obama is the economic enemy ... He is the religious enemy ... he is the `Fundamentally change' America enemy ... he IS the Domestic Enemy," Stein wrote, according to court documents filed by prosecutors based on a screen grab of the page.

Stein later clarified in a posting that he would not follow any unlawful orders from the president. Huff commended Stein for doing that, but she said "nevertheless, he made a very strong statement."

In making her ruling, Huff told Stein that service members have several options to appeal any ruling within the military, including asking for a review by a board of civilians.

Stein acknowledged after the hearing that the options are available only after he has been discharged – which he wants to stop from happening.

The nine-year veteran who served in Iraq said he should not have his career wiped out for "15 words on Facebook."

"I've never disobeyed any order," said Stein, whose service ends July 28. He has said he wants to re-enlist.

"It's like a boxing match," he said of Friday's ruling. "I'm down two rounds now."

Stein plans to continue to fight outside the military and go to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[BrokeNoMore]

I hope he wins. He didn't say anything untrue. He might have had better judgement, but he is a veteran, and nothing less than treason should be able to take that away. Certainly not this.

[Francie26]

I hope he wins. He didn't say anything untrue. He might have had better judgement, but he is a veteran, and nothing less than treason should be able to take that away. Certainly not this.

I agree. I believe he has the right to dislike his superiors, although he has to obey orders from them. The problem I have, however, is that I don't like Obama, either.

[Weapon X]

I agree. I believe he has the right to dislike his superiors, although he has to obey orders from them. The problem I have, however, is that I don't like Obama, either.

And with that remark you tell us you have never served in the military a day in your life.

When you enlist, and he did enlist, you cede certain rights that civilians have. Among them is the right to denegrate the commander in chief. It's much like saluting, you salute the rank not the man. You cannot have every individual deciding what order HE thinks are legal and will follow and which he won't. This clown was repeatedly warned so one must assume he wants out. He should be given his wish but I would give him a BCD.

As a NCO he made his bed knowing full well what he was doing. Now let him lie in that bed. Many of us served and didn't always agree with our superiors but very few went out of their way to stir the pot. Stein is a pot stirrer of the first order.

[securityguy]

There are conditional discharges that would allow him rights of his military service. A BCD I believe is over the top. That is like expelling a student and taking his earned grade away from him. Expell him for his violation but he earned the grade.

[Weapon X]

There are conditional discharges that would allow him rights of his military service. A BCD I believe is over the top. That is like expelling a student and taking his earned grade away from him. Expell him for his violation but he earned the grade.

He was informed that what he was doing was wrong, he acknowledged and did it again. He is a Non Commissioned officer of 9 years, he knew better and decided to ignore. He deserves a BCD and more if they could give it to him.

[nstoolman1]

I have never served in the military. I can only hope and pray that if an order was given

that was against the Constitution of the United States that every service person would “disobey” that order.

They take an oath to the Constitution ( To protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic) not an office or person.

We the people should support them.

[Weapon X]

I have never served in the military. I can only hope and pray that if an order was given

that was against the Constitution of the United States that every service person would “disobey” that order.

They take an oath to the Constitution ( To protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic) not an office or person.

We the people should support them.

nstoolman here is the oath

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

You are correct to say we are there to protect the US Constitution but when say we do not take an oath to office or person you are incorrect

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Be advised that in the same Oath it states we are to obay orders in according to regulations and the UCMJ, and in both instances what Gary Stein was against them. Also that in the initial facebook post Gary did not say yhe would not follow an unlawful order, he stated that he would not follow orders from Obama, he changed it when he was caught and was told he could not do that in 2010.

As I stated before he deserves a BCD and he deserves to lose all veteran benefits.

[aliciadogz]

God Bless you Gary Stein!!!! Hear I'll say it all for you service men and women.obama your your the f++++++ enemy

To any you service men and women I'll say it for you!

[TPSprayduster]

He is going to be awarded a OTH which is not as bad as a BCD. He stood there and took the oath no one twisted his arm. For those who choose to make this political the Sgt Made this political. he is another military person who decided to throw away a career and lost the benefits of a Good Conduct discharge. here you have folks on this forum cheering him on. I guess you guys are going to contribute to his fund to provide for him once he has been released from duty. For those who have not served, this is a rule you do not break unless you want to be discharge with other than honorable. Said thing about it is he was getting out and if he had keep his mouth shut and finished his time, he could put up bill boards and shout in the street and exercise his right to free speech. Nope he decided to set a bad example for his junior marines and now he pays the price for it.

[TexasGranny]

I realize this is a controversial subject but if you cannot discuss it without calling each other names, I will close the topic.

[TPSprayduster]

This quote is removed due to the offensive language.

I never said i love the president, Usaok, haven't you already been cautioned how you address people. Cut and dry you took the oath and so did you. Keep up your own rhetoric. I won't hit the report button because i am above you and how you address people. A Army Col bit the dust because he followed along with the birther trip and Sgt Stein will also pay the price as well. Yes people will cheer him own but when the day is over he will be cast aside. I guess you never lead troops in your tenure as a Marine and if you had any leadership skills you would be teaching you troops to follow orders and be the best they can be you don't have to like your superiors but you have to respect them. A lot of folks who have never worn the uniform would not understand that and i believe you have forgotten that. If we had the situation of no i don't want to go on Patrol in wherever area of operations the Marines served then you would have issues in the rank and we would all be in danger of dying. Think about that the next time before you post. Note: I won't respond to you as you have done.

Edited April 15, 2012 by TexasGranny
removed offense language from quote

[AKVET]

When I was in the service we could deni an unlawful order and report the officer or ncom to a higher authority. And that include the president if he gave an unautherized order.

[Weapon X]

When I was in the service we could deni an unlawful order and report the officer or ncom to a higher authority. And that include the president if he gave an unautherized order.

And yet this person did not receive such order. The point that got him in troubles was that he stated that Obama was the enemy and he would not follow Obamas orders, he was admonished by his CO's and he changed it to unlawful order and when told to stop he continued. He was a 9+ year NCO he know better.

If he wants to be a political critic he will be able to do it as a civilian.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Weapon X

[40oz]

This Gary Stein sounds like one heck of a stand-up guy. I'm sure he'll have no problems landing a much better job here in the states, as he is now seen as somewhat of a hero in many peoples' eyes. I'm glad to hear that he is making it out in one piece and returning home to continue fighting the good fight.

Imagine what the voice of the people would sound like if so many good men and women weren't silenced by our military. Uncle Sam gets some of our best and brightest before they even know who they are and the first thing they do is slap a muzzle on them.

[TPSprayduster]

This Gary Stein sounds like one heck of a stand-up guy. I'm sure he'll have no problems landing a much better job here in the states, as he is now seen as somewhat of a hero in many peoples' eyes. I'm glad to hear that he is making it out in one piece and returning home to continue fighting the good fight.

Imagine what the voice of the people would sound like if so many good men and women weren't silenced by our military. Uncle Sam gets some of our best and brightest before they even know who they are and the first thing they do is slap a muzzle on them.

Made it out in one piece? He is stationed at Camp Pendelton California and was not deployed at the time of the infractions. Hero in some people's eyes. Just like Lt Col Larkin he was recently denied a medical license due to his dismissal from Army which is considered for an Officer a Dishonorable discharge. Google the story and article you will read blames his political beliefs. Now will Gary Stein have it easier than Terry Larkin? Probably not but of course he was tossed aside after his purpose was served as well.

[Francie26]

WND EXCLUSIVE

SURVEY SHOWS MARINES GIVE OBAMA LOW MARKS

Ratings plunge to lowest point since he took office

By Jack Minor

The Marine Corps Times is reporting that Barack Obama has more than one sergeant who is critical of his performance as commander-in-chief.

The report from the Marine newspaper comes just as the corps is trying to dismiss Sgt. Gary Stein for making unflattering comments about Obama on a personal Facebook page.

It was in a March 26 article called “Anti-Obama Marines that the paper reported, “Stein is not alone in his disdain for the president. Published in early March, the most recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members shows the lowest approval ratings for Obama’s job as commander in chief since he took office in 2009: 25 percent, down from 35 after Obama’s first year on the job. And rank-and-file Marines are hearing considerably more anti-Obama talk on the job than they noticed in the past.”

The report noted this year’s Military Times poll revealed that 44 percent of respondents disapproved of the way Obama is handling his job as commander in chief.

Last week a Marine Corps administrative board recommended that Stein be given an other-than-honorable discharge after receiving a complaint over statements posted on his personal Armed Forces tea party page. The discharge would prevent Stein from receiving any benefits for his nine years of service.

However, if the Marine Corps did not want Stein to remain in the Corps, there is another option available that would have avoided all of the publicity. Stein’s enlistment is up in July, and if they chose to do so, Marine Corps officials simply could have him wait out his enlistment for the next few months and give him an honorable or general discharge.

Instead, taking the lengthy legal steps to discharge him has caused a retired JAG officer to question the reasoning for the discharge under these circumstances.

Lt. Col. John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said, “It is obvious that someone higher up wants to bring the military into line.”

The statement echoes that of Stein’s attorney Gary Kreep with the United States Justice Foundation.

“I don’t think the Marine Corps has any intention of treating him fairly in any appeal,” he said. “It’s my opinion, but I believe Obama sent orders down from above to get rid of this guy.”

One of the complaints is that Stein published statements that he would not obey illegal orders issued by Obama. Stein testified the statement was in reference to a discussion about letting U.S. troops be put on trial for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.

WND reported that the Afghan government issued a statement saying NATO had agreed to put the soldiers on trial. When asked if the U.S. would commit to ensuring the soldiers would not face trial in an Afghan court a Pentagon spokesman said, “No. The only commitment we have made is that we will take any appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary by the investigation.

. . . . . . . . .

Marine lawyers argued that Stein should be kicked out of the corps for comments critical of Obama saying they were “prejudicial to good order and discipline.”

One of the comments noted by Marine lawyers called Obama “the domestic and religious enemy.”

“This is what he’s putting out to the public, and he’s a sergeant of Marines, on active duty,” Capt. John Torresala, representing Stein’s commander said. “How can this not be prejudicial to good order and discipline?”

However, according to a Marine Corps training manual on the subject, Stein does not appear to have done anything wrong with his postings.

In “The Social Corps,” a 48-page manual instructing Marines in the use of social media, it says Stein has a perfect right to speak out on any political issue or candidate.

On page 12 it says, “The Marine Corps encourages Marines to carry out their obligations as citizens. This includes politics. However, there are limitations to your political activity. You can express your political views on public issues or political candidates online, but not as part of an organized communication campaign.”

The manual also says any comments a Marine posts are considered an unofficial Internet post and that when expressing personal opinions Marines “must make clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of the Marine Corps.”

Stein fulfilled this requirement by clearly posting a statement on the page saying, “We do not represent, and are in no way affiliated with the military, or the United States Armed Forces.”

Additionally, despite Torresala’s comments at no time did Stein post any pictures of himself in uniform.

The Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 which deals with social media postings also appears to support Stein’s right for the postings.

Among the list of acceptable activities for member of the armed forces are to “write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views on public issues or political candidates as long as the purpose is not to solicit votes for or against a political party, cause or candidate.”

On Stein’s webpage there are no actual statements encouraging people to vote against Obama.

“From what I see so far hear, it doesn’t seem as if he is in violation of the regulation,” Eidsmoe said. “So long as he was out of uniform, his comments were not disrespectful, he did not disclose classified information and he made it plain he was not speaking for the Marine Corps, he was perfectly within his rights.”

Eidsmoe suggested that if it becomes evident that pressure was exerted from the administration to remove Stein for his comments it could be a violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits government officials in the executive branch from engaging in partisan political activity.He said while discipline is a vital part of military culture, another key part is for leaders to not surround themselves with “yes men,” noting that Obama does not respond well to any criticism.

“We have to have discipline, but in our officer training we say ‘you want a subordinate officer who will tell you the truth, not what you want to hear.’ We don’t have that kind of commander-in-chief now.”

[TPSprayduster]

WND EXCLUSIVE

SURVEY SHOWS MARINES GIVE OBAMA LOW MARKS

Ratings plunge to lowest point since he took office

By Jack Minor

The Marine Corps Times is reporting that Barack Obama has more than one sergeant who is critical of his performance as commander-in-chief.

The report from the Marine newspaper comes just as the corps is trying to dismiss Sgt. Gary Stein for making unflattering comments about Obama on a personal Facebook page.

It was in a March 26 article called “Anti-Obama Marines that the paper reported, “Stein is not alone in his disdain for the president. Published in early March, the most recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members shows the lowest approval ratings for Obama’s job as commander in chief since he took office in 2009: 25 percent, down from 35 after Obama’s first year on the job. And rank-and-file Marines are hearing considerably more anti-Obama talk on the job than they noticed in the past.”

The report noted this year’s Military Times poll revealed that 44 percent of respondents disapproved of the way Obama is handling his job as commander in chief.

Last week a Marine Corps administrative board recommended that Stein be given an other-than-honorable discharge after receiving a complaint over statements posted on his personal Armed Forces tea party page. The discharge would prevent Stein from receiving any benefits for his nine years of service.

However, if the Marine Corps did not want Stein to remain in the Corps, there is another option available that would have avoided all of the publicity. Stein’s enlistment is up in July, and if they chose to do so, Marine Corps officials simply could have him wait out his enlistment for the next few months and give him an honorable or general discharge.

Instead, taking the lengthy legal steps to discharge him has caused a retired JAG officer to question the reasoning for the discharge under these circumstances.

Lt. Col. John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said, “It is obvious that someone higher up wants to bring the military into line.”

The statement echoes that of Stein’s attorney Gary Kreep with the United States Justice Foundation.

“I don’t think the Marine Corps has any intention of treating him fairly in any appeal,” he said. “It’s my opinion, but I believe Obama sent orders down from above to get rid of this guy.”

One of the complaints is that Stein published statements that he would not obey illegal orders issued by Obama. Stein testified the statement was in reference to a discussion about letting U.S. troops be put on trial for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.

WND reported that the Afghan government issued a statement saying NATO had agreed to put the soldiers on trial. When asked if the U.S. would commit to ensuring the soldiers would not face trial in an Afghan court a Pentagon spokesman said, “No. The only commitment we have made is that we will take any appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary by the investigation.

. . . . . . . . .

Marine lawyers argued that Stein should be kicked out of the corps for comments critical of Obama saying they were “prejudicial to good order and discipline.”

One of the comments noted by Marine lawyers called Obama “the domestic and religious enemy.”

“This is what he’s putting out to the public, and he’s a sergeant of Marines, on active duty,” Capt. John Torresala, representing Stein’s commander said. “How can this not be prejudicial to good order and discipline?”

However, according to a Marine Corps training manual on the subject, Stein does not appear to have done anything wrong with his postings.

In “The Social Corps,” a 48-page manual instructing Marines in the use of social media, it says Stein has a perfect right to speak out on any political issue or candidate.

On page 12 it says, “The Marine Corps encourages Marines to carry out their obligations as citizens. This includes politics. However, there are limitations to your political activity. You can express your political views on public issues or political candidates online, but not as part of an organized communication campaign.”

The manual also says any comments a Marine posts are considered an unofficial Internet post and that when expressing personal opinions Marines “must make clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of the Marine Corps.”

Stein fulfilled this requirement by clearly posting a statement on the page saying, “We do not represent, and are in no way affiliated with the military, or the United States Armed Forces.”

Additionally, despite Torresala’s comments at no time did Stein post any pictures of himself in uniform.

The Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 which deals with social media postings also appears to support Stein’s right for the postings.

Among the list of acceptable activities for member of the armed forces are to “write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views on public issues or political candidates as long as the purpose is not to solicit votes for or against a political party, cause or candidate.”

On Stein’s webpage there are no actual statements encouraging people to vote against Obama.

“From what I see so far hear, it doesn’t seem as if he is in violation of the regulation,” Eidsmoe said. “So long as he was out of uniform, his comments were not disrespectful, he did not disclose classified information and he made it plain he was not speaking for the Marine Corps, he was perfectly within his rights.”

Eidsmoe suggested that if it becomes evident that pressure was exerted from the administration to remove Stein for his comments it could be a violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits government officials in the executive branch from engaging in partisan political activity.He said while discipline is a vital part of military culture, another key part is for leaders to not surround themselves with “yes men,” noting that Obama does not respond well to any criticism.

“We have to have discipline, but in our officer training we say ‘you want a subordinate officer who will tell you the truth, not what you want to hear.’ We don’t have that kind of commander-in-chief now.”

The Marine Corps is not a popularity contest it is a tool used by the US to deploy rapidly, kick butt and turn it over to the Army. If you have people in the ranks who refuse orders well you won't not have a ogranziation who does not have time for why do i have to clean the crapper or why do i have to be the Gunner on the MRAP? It is called discipline and obey orders not cause havoc. If you are not happy with your CNC then finish your time and get your Good Conduct discharge and continue your life as you see fit. When you sign up your free speech and rights went out the window. Today's military as told to me by an old NCO is this, the Armed forces owes the troops everything and they don't have to do crap. So when i read this post from the WND/Inforwars all i see is creators of chaos. In my day the NCO was the back bone of the Marine Corps, they advised young officer when making decision and also was a mentor for younger troops to ensure they knew there job and could perform the mission no matter what it was. Today's military is the why military. Can you imagine this type of nonsense in the World War 2? In article it says not only stein was critical of the President but do you see anyone else putting their careers on the line?

[Weapon X]

Francie I wish you read and researched what you posted.

According to the Marines - Social media hand book, which by the way is not a directive or regulation, on page 8 in red box it states quite clearly and I quote:

It’s Political

It’s against federal law for commissioned officers to communicate contemptuous

words against the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Deputy

Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, or Governor and Legislature of

any state in which he or she is located or performing duty in.[/quote]

Also on page 36 under the subject 15 Tips to Stay Safe and Out of Trouble Online, it states and I quote:

Don’t break the law.

• Adhere to Federal law, as well as Department

of Defense, Department of Navy, and

Marine Corps regulations and policies.

• Don’t use any words, logos or other marks

in your posts if it will infringe upon the

trademark, service mark, certification

mark, or other intellectual property rights

of the owners.

•If you violate Federal law, regulations or

policies, you are subject to disciplinary

action under the Uniform Code of Military

Justice (UCMJ)

So apparently WND got it wrong again and Corsi is full of cr@p as usual. Gary Stein was informed in 2010 that his words and web page were in violation of several regulations, after acknowledging it he did it again.

You can read and/or download it here Marines Social Media Handbook

Edited April 15, 2012 by Weapon X

[TexasGranny]

I have no intention of getting into this argument as my late husband was a Marine who believed being a member of the USMC was the greatest thing he had ever accomplished.

However, I'm curious why the difference in the way a NCO's insubordination is handled compared to a General.

I don't believe General McChrystal lost any of his military privileges or benefits when President Obama "FIRED" him for his comments that were published in Rolling Stone.

Which, by the way, he never denied.

So, why should the Gary Stein case be different - he committed no worse violation of the code than General McChrystal but they want to strip everything from him.

General McChrystal's position was far more impactful than an NCO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37866754/ns/us_news-military/t/obama-relieves-mcchrystal-command/#.T4rnfFFtqSo

General McChrystal Will Retain His Four Star Rank

I'm not saying Stein should not be reprimanded but that his "punishment" should not be more severe than a General that held prominent command of forces in harms way.

[Weapon X]

Roaming the net I found this in The Army Times it dates back to 2007, I found it enlightening and very true

Enjoy

Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

By Mathew B. Tully - Special to the Times

Posted : Monday Aug 27, 2007 12:22:38 EDT

Q: I am currently on active duty and I want to get involved in politics. Can I?

A: This is a tricky question. The short answer is “no,” but like almost everything with law, exceptions do apply. (If it was not for exceptions in the law, law school would be three months instead of three years.) Numerous articles in the UCMJ restrict the speech of service members, and two of those could affect political speech. I would point out that under Article 2 of the UCMJ, retired members of the military drawing pay, as well as active-duty service members, are subject to UCMJ provisions. So if you think retiring will allow you to escape UCMJ action, you are wrong.

DISCUSS

Speech limits and the UCMJ

My favorite UCMJ provision is Article 88, which makes it a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present

In 1999, Army Lieutenant Colonel Michael Davidson explained in a law review article that contemptuous “means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.” (Read the full article, which is very instructive on Article 88).

This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s. Ltc. Davidson points out, “Since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950 only a single known court-martial has occurred pursuant to Article 88. In United States v. Howe, an Army Lieutenant was convicted for carrying a sign during an antiwar demonstration that read ‘Let’s Have More Than A Choice Between Petty Ignorant Fascists In 1968’ on one side and ‘End Johnson’s Fascist Aggression In Vietnam’ on the other side. Lieutenant Howe did not participate in organizing the demonstration, but merely joined it after it began. During the half-hour demonstration, Howe was off duty, in civilian clothes, and no one at the demonstration knew of his military affiliation. Howe came to the Army’s attention only because a gas station attendant, who Howe had asked for directions, spotted the lieutenant’s sign and an Army sticker on his vehicle and subsequently notified the local military police.”

Lt. Howe was sentenced to dismissal, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. The convening authority reduced the period of confinement to one year and otherwise approved the sentence. Three months and two days after his trial he was released from confinement under commandant’s parole.

Article 134, known as the catch-all article, makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This is pretty broad and explains why it is often called the catch-all article. If your chain of command thinks your political involvement has affected your unit or the military, you could be punished under this article.

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to worry about. If you are a noncommissioned officer, warrant officer or an officer, and attempt to influence other members of the military to vote because of your military authority, then you will be facing five years in prison under 18 USC 609.

Now that you have brushed up on some key laws, you could also run afoul of some very restrictive regulations. DoD Directive 1344.10 bans active-duty service members from running for office, participating in partisan political management, or campaigns (many exceptions are applicable).

If you have plans to speak out against the current administration, I would strongly recommend against it until you are off active duty — and not collecting retired pay!

Keep the questions coming.

Mathew B. Tully, Esq. is a field artillery officer in the New York National Guard and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is also the founding partner of Tully, Rinckey and Associates, a law firm in Albany, N.Y. E-mail your legal questions to askthelawyer@militarytiumes.com.

I have no intention of getting into this argument as my late husband was a Marine who believed being a member of the USMC was the greatest thing he had ever accomplished.

However, I'm curious why the difference in the way a NCO's insubordination is handled compared to a General.

I don't believe General McChrystal lost any of his military privileges or benefits when President Obama "FIRED" him for his comments that were published in Rolling Stone.

Which, by the way, he never denied.

So, why should the Gary Stein case be different - he committed no worse violation of the code than General McChrystal but they want to strip everything from him.

General McChrystal's position was far more impactful than an NCO.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37866754/ns/us_news-military/t/obama-relieves-mcchrystal-command/#.T4rnfFFtqSo

General McChrystal Will Retain His Four Star Rank

I'm not saying Stein should not be reprimanded but that his "punishment" should not be more severe than a General that held prominent command of forces in harms way.

That is one of the conundrums of the military, in most cases an officer will be allowed to retire, even thou in Terry Larkins situation he was prosecuted and sent to Leavenworth and dishonorably discharged, and the enlisted takes the brunt of the UCMJ. Its the way the cookie crumbles.

[TPSprayduster]

Roaming the net I found this in The Army Times it dates back to 2007, I found it enlightening and very true

Enjoy

Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

By Mathew B. Tully - Special to the Times

Posted : Monday Aug 27, 2007 12:22:38 EDT

Q: I am currently on active duty and I want to get involved in politics. Can I?

A: This is a tricky question. The short answer is “no,” but like almost everything with law, exceptions do apply. (If it was not for exceptions in the law, law school would be three months instead of three years.) Numerous articles in the UCMJ restrict the speech of service members, and two of those could affect political speech. I would point out that under Article 2 of the UCMJ, retired members of the military drawing pay, as well as active-duty service members, are subject to UCMJ provisions. So if you think retiring will allow you to escape UCMJ action, you are wrong.

DISCUSS

Speech limits and the UCMJ

My favorite UCMJ provision is Article 88, which makes it a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present

In 1999, Army Lieutenant Colonel Michael Davidson explained in a law review article that contemptuous “means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.” (Read the full article, which is very instructive on Article 88).

This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s. Ltc. Davidson points out, “Since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950 only a single known court-martial has occurred pursuant to Article 88. In United States v. Howe, an Army Lieutenant was convicted for carrying a sign during an antiwar demonstration that read ‘Let’s Have More Than A Choice Between Petty Ignorant Fascists In 1968’ on one side and ‘End Johnson’s Fascist Aggression In Vietnam’ on the other side. Lieutenant Howe did not participate in organizing the demonstration, but merely joined it after it began. During the half-hour demonstration, Howe was off duty, in civilian clothes, and no one at the demonstration knew of his military affiliation. Howe came to the Army’s attention only because a gas station attendant, who Howe had asked for directions, spotted the lieutenant’s sign and an Army sticker on his vehicle and subsequently notified the local military police.”

Lt. Howe was sentenced to dismissal, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. The convening authority reduced the period of confinement to one year and otherwise approved the sentence. Three months and two days after his trial he was released from confinement under commandant’s parole.

Article 134, known as the catch-all article, makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This is pretty broad and explains why it is often called the catch-all article. If your chain of command thinks your political involvement has affected your unit or the military, you could be punished under this article.

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to worry about. If you are a noncommissioned officer, warrant officer or an officer, and attempt to influence other members of the military to vote because of your military authority, then you will be facing five years in prison under 18 USC 609.

Now that you have brushed up on some key laws, you could also run afoul of some very restrictive regulations. DoD Directive 1344.10 bans active-duty service members from running for office, participating in partisan political management, or campaigns (many exceptions are applicable).

If you have plans to speak out against the current administration, I would strongly recommend against it until you are off active duty — and not collecting retired pay!

Keep the questions coming.

Mathew B. Tully, Esq. is a field artillery officer in the New York National Guard and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is also the founding partner of Tully, Rinckey and Associates, a law firm in Albany, N.Y. E-mail your legal questions to askthelawyer@militarytiumes.com.

That is one of the conundrums of the military, in most cases an officer will be allowed to retire, even thou in Terry Larkins situation he was prosecuted and sent to Leavenworth and dishonorably discharged, and the enlisted takes the brunt of the UCMJ. Its the way the cookie crumbles.

An NCO has more sense and should know better. As i mentioned in one of my earlier post, NCO's actually teach officers especially new officers or should i say advise them. Gen McCrystal well i cannot speak on Officers, but i do know more about what an NCO should and should not do. Sgt Stein rolled the dice and looks like he ended up with Snake eyes. He made his bed and now he will sleep in it or he jump on instead of stepping on his sword.

Edited April 15, 2012 by TPSprayduster

[BrokeNoMore]

What about the oath Obama took when he was sworn into office?

They're going to fry this soldier but Obama is taking us down in flames.

I hear what you're all saying, but to me it reeks of injustice.

[caz1104]

And with that remark you tell us you have never served in the military a day in your life.

When you enlist, and he did enlist, you cede certain rights that civilians have. Among them is the right to denegrate the commander in chief. It's much like saluting, you salute the rank not the man. You cannot have every individual deciding what order HE thinks are legal and will follow and which he won't. This clown was repeatedly warned so one must assume he wants out. He should be given his wish but I would give him a BCD.

As a NCO he made his bed knowing full well what he was doing. Now let him lie in that bed. Many of us served and didn't always agree with our superiors but very few went out of their way to stir the pot. Stein is a pot stirrer of the first order.

I don't see where it is said that one cedes the right to denegrate the commander in chief in what you posted. Is it stated somewhere like you mentioned? Thanks

nstoolman here is the oath

You are correct to say we are there to protect the US Constitution but when say we do not take an oath to office or person you are incorrect

Be advised that in the same Oath it states we are to obay orders in according to regulations and the UCMJ, and in both instances what Gary Stein was against them. Also that in the initial facebook post Gary did not say yhe would not follow an unlawful order, he stated that he would not follow orders from Obama, he changed it when he was caught and was told he could not do that in 2010.

As I stated before he deserves a BCD and he deserves to lose all veteran benefits.

nevermind I see it posted after I wrote my response.

[sxsess]

nstoolman here is the oath

You are correct to say we are there to protect the US Constitution but when say we do not take an oath to office or person you are incorrect

Be advised that in the same Oath it states we are to obay orders in according to regulations and the UCMJ, and in both instances what Gary Stein was against them. Also that in the initial facebook post Gary did not say yhe would not follow an unlawful order, he stated that he would not follow orders from Obama, he changed it when he was caught and was told he could not do that in 2010.

As I stated before he deserves a BCD and he deserves to lose all veteran benefits.

Weapon X I agree with you about the oath. But, to me, the game has changed. Obama also swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, and what is he doing?? He is attempting to destroy! Like I said the game has changed! Gloves are off and anything goes in my book. Screw oaths!