Zone-Five Aircraft Modeling Forums  

Go Back   Zone-Five Aircraft Modeling Forums > O-Club > O-Club

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 25th, 2012, 09:13 PM
Rio's Avatar
Rio Rio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Conch Republic
Posts: 1,140
Default Once a Marine, Always a Marine!-Now, with more drama

Once a Marine, always a Marine! No one can take that title away from Marine SGT Stein. Drinks are on me, SGT of Marines Stein!
In the other hand, Obama will ALWAYS be a JACKASS!!
Semper Fi!
Do or Die!
Molon Labe!
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...scharge/502481
__________________
Post Tenebras Lux
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 25th, 2012, 10:13 PM
SuperCobra's Avatar
SuperCobra SuperCobra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Wilderness
Posts: 973
Default

Maybe...

A Marine knows how to follow the UCMJ and square himself away when corrected. From what I've read, (and I admit I'm not privy to all of the facts), this guy was told on numerous occasions to get in line and didn't. An OTH isn't handed out by a board of fellow Marines without reason. We didn't sit on this board but it appears to me he wanted to bring negative attention to himself and our Corps. My loyalty rests with the organization rather than the individual who discredits it and I don't see how anyone can say this guy's actions reflected "great credit upon himself and the USMC." This guy knew the rules, was reminded of them, and choose not to obey.

If Marines disown you are you still a Marine? I think that this "Once a Marine Always a Marine" is taken too far and too literal. Once a Marine discredits himself or the Corps I have no problem throwing him/her under the bus. Although I would prefer if some infamous individuals were never identified as being Marines, I have no problem labeling them as ex-Marines if they have to be associated at all.

From my perspective, there are plenty (too many) of ex-Marines: Garwood, Lonetree, and Oswald for example. Don't think those guys were bad enough to earn the title ex-Marine? How about Murtha then? In my view, "Semper Fi" is to the Corps and those who serve(d) honorably and faithfully. I think an OTH should take you out of the running.

Semper Fi!
__________________
"Blaming guns for violence is like blaming silverware for obesity."

Last edited by SuperCobra; April 25th, 2012 at 10:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 26th, 2012, 12:55 AM
Afterburner Decals Scott's Avatar
Afterburner Decals Scott Afterburner Decals Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 6,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCobra View Post
Maybe...

A Marine knows how to follow the UCMJ and square himself away when corrected. From what I've read, (and I admit I'm not privy to all of the facts), this guy was told on numerous occasions to get in line and didn't. An OTH isn't handed out by a board of fellow Marines without reason. We didn't sit on this board but it appears to me he wanted to bring negative attention to himself and our Corps. My loyalty rests with the organization rather than the individual who discredits it and I don't see how anyone can say this guy's actions reflected "great credit upon himself and the USMC." This guy knew the rules, was reminded of them, and choose not to obey.

If Marines disown you are you still a Marine? I think that this "Once a Marine Always a Marine" is taken too far and too literal. Once a Marine discredits himself or the Corps I have no problem throwing him/her under the bus. Although I would prefer if some infamous individuals were never identified as being Marines, I have no problem labeling them as ex-Marines if they have to be associated at all.

From my perspective, there are plenty (too many) of ex-Marines: Garwood, Lonetree, and Oswald for example. Don't think those guys were bad enough to earn the title ex-Marine? How about Murtha then? In my view, "Semper Fi" is to the Corps and those who serve(d) honorably and faithfully. I think an OTH should take you out of the running.

Semper Fi!

Legit question...how many more contraventions of the constitution have to occur before the military is complicit in protecting a domestic enemy?

The oath is to the constitution, not the POTUS. I have to admit to being incredibly uneasy with the level of willingness I see military people have to use the UCMJ as the justification to squash dissent of illegality in the government.

At what point is the UCMJ the enemy of the constitution and the oath? The lines are pretty close together.
__________________
http://www.zone-five.net/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=21&dateline=131227160  1
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 26th, 2012, 02:20 AM
John B's Avatar
John B John B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 32* 52' N, 117* 13' W
Posts: 1,743
Default

Stein is a class-A, jack-ass, loud-mouth, small-dick village idiot.

I got the word through the grapevine that he was informally and formally counselled about his actions (via the "senior SNCO network" at Pendleton - funny thing is a lot of those SNCOs used to be in the "LCpl network" with me) on more than one occasion over the past 2 years. Here's my dirt-simple common-sense logic -

1) You wouldn't spray paint "My squad leader is an idiot and I refuse to follow his orders" on the wall of the barracks without repurcussions, so why does he think its okay to do it on-line on a public forum about anyone else in his chain-of-command?

2) He was formally counselled about make sure to represent himself as a private citizen (ie "not a representative of the Marine Corps") when he posted his political opinions on-line. What does he do? He creates his own "pseudo-Tea Party" website to post his opinion "as a Marine". Only after he gets the attention of his command AGAIN, does he change his words from his wording from "orders" to "illegal orders".

3) He is (or maybe "was") a Sergeant. If one of his Lance Corporals mouthed-off about him within earshot of his fellow NCOs, what would he expect his fellow NCOs to do? If that same Lance Corporal told Sgt Stein "I'm not going to follow your or the Platoon Leader's orders", how would you expect him to react?

4) He was also formally counselled NOT to post his opinions ESPECIALLY using a government computer during work hours. Why do you suppose someone needs to be reminded NOT to do such things when you're supposed to be at work? Hmmm....

5) Stein is a Meteorlogical guy. Translation - he's a fucking weatherman at Edson Range on Camp Pendleton supporting the recruits from MCRD learning how to fire their rifle. What fucking possible illegal act is he going to be ordered to perform? Launch a weather balloon at night? Predict that a blizzard will occur in August in San Diego county?

6) He deployed to a combat zone ONCE in his career. What do you suppose a weatherman like him does in Iraq? He stays at a major installation like an airbase, launches a weather balloon, downloads the latest satellite weather photos, works in a air-conditioned space (possibly a bunker), and takes hot showers every night! WHAT THE FUCK ILLEGAL ACT IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO PERFORM OVER THERE?!?!

7) He finds out he's going to receive an admin seperation - possibly what he wanted all along. After does he realizes that he's going lose all his benefits does he hire a civilian lawyer and file a lawsuit against the Marine Corps.

8) If you bad-mouthed your boss in the civilian world on Twitter, Facebook, or any other public forum, would you expect to keep your job?

Stein is a PUSSY. He rose a ruckus when he thought he had the Constitutional right to say whatever he wants to about anyone in his Chain-of-Command while full immunity while in uniform. He kept raising the stakes and causing more ruckus until finally he got the attention of CGs and COs. He found out he's not an expert in military law, no matter how smart he thinks he is. He's paying the price and whining about it to anyone who'll listen to him. I wouldn't trust him to have my back at any combat zone in any clime and place.

Here's the legal opinion of someone who IS an expert in military law -> Opinion of Gary D Solis, Lt Col USMC (ret)

BTW - I was a Sergeant in the Marine Corps and I'm embarrassed to associated with a pussy like Stein.
__________________
I understand that political opinions are like an anus and we each have one.
My point is "Why don't you keep both of YOURS to YOURSELF on a modelling site?"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 26th, 2012, 04:21 AM
Afterburner Decals Scott's Avatar
Afterburner Decals Scott Afterburner Decals Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 6,707
Default

I didn't mention Stein at all.
__________________
http://www.zone-five.net/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=21&dateline=131227160  1
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 26th, 2012, 04:50 AM
Sabre Freak's Avatar
Sabre Freak Sabre Freak is offline
Internet Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Coralville, Iowa
Posts: 3,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afterburner Decals Scott View Post
Legit question...how many more contraventions of the constitution have to occur before the military is complicit in protecting a domestic enemy?

The oath is to the constitution, not the POTUS. I have to admit to being incredibly uneasy with the level of willingness I see military people have to use the UCMJ as the justification to squash dissent of illegality in the government.

At what point is the UCMJ the enemy of the constitution and the oath? The lines are pretty close together.
How is it not to POTUS?

Quote:
I, XXXXXXXXXX, 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
Bold is mine.

Now in the order of things, allegiance to the Constitution comes first. My understanding has always been that you have to obey orders, unless you're ordered to so something unconstitutional.

While we can debate the constitutionality of the current PONTUS actions, I don't believe he has ever ordered the military to do anything unconstitutional.
__________________

"Man gets shot that's got a gun, there's room for reasonable doubt. Man gets shot that hasn't got a gun, what would you call it?" John T. Chance
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 26th, 2012, 05:32 AM
GW8345 GW8345 is offline
Old Cranky Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,749
Default

He should have gotten time in the brig and then given a "Big Chicken Dinner" (Bad Conduct Discharge).

Regulations are regulations, he broke them, was told not to do it again and continued to break them. He was given every opportunity to reverse course but continued on a course that was against regulations, he got what he deserved.

Just because some part of the population believes a politician is "a domestic enemy" that doesn't give the military a reason to not follow the UCMJ. The UCMJ provides for good order and discipline, something essential to every unit, without it the US Military is nothing more than a group of individuals dressed the same who occasionally accomplishes mediocre things.

It's always the REMF's that think they can break regulations and are afraid of being giving "illegal" orders, all the while sitting their ass in a nice safe place drinking coffee and surfing the interweb.

Stein is just another one of those 10%'ers and should have been shown the door long ago.

Gerry

(BTW: 10%'ers, it's always 10% of your people who take up 90% of your time...I.E. someone who doesn't get it and just wants to cause trouble because mommy and daddy didn't love them enough to spank their ass occasionally)

Last edited by GW8345; April 26th, 2012 at 09:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 26th, 2012, 05:48 AM
TANK's Avatar
TANK TANK is offline
S/F not just a saying
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nort Cackalacky
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabre Freak View Post
My understanding has always been that you have to obey orders, unless you're ordered to so something unconstitutional
What I remember is if the order is unlawful. You can debate if it's unconstitutional it's unlawful but to the Joe troop (Marine, can't speak for the other services) the constitution is not your first thought.

An unlawful order is going to have to been something that is very simple cut and dry cases otherwise your going to have a hard time not following orders.

Things have changed but I am surprised he got the one chance, let alone many chances. We have gone soft, maybe too soft in some areas.
__________________
The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 26th, 2012, 05:56 AM
TANK's Avatar
TANK TANK is offline
S/F not just a saying
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nort Cackalacky
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John B View Post
1) You wouldn't spray paint "My squad leader is an idiot and I refuse to follow his orders" on the wall of the barracks without repurcussions, so why does he think its okay to do it on-line on a public forum about anyone else in his chain-of-command?

2) He was formally counselled about make sure to represent himself as a private citizen (ie "not a representative of the Marine Corps") when he posted his political opinions on-line. What does he do? He creates his own "pseudo-Tea Party" website to post his opinion "as a Marine". Only after he gets the attention of his command AGAIN, does he change his words from his wording from "orders" to "illegal orders".

3) He is (or maybe "was") a Sergeant. If one of his Lance Corporals mouthed-off about him within earshot of his fellow NCOs, what would he expect his fellow NCOs to do? If that same Lance Corporal told Sgt Stein "I'm not going to follow your or the Platoon Leader's orders", how would you expect him to react?

4) He was also formally counselled NOT to post his opinions ESPECIALLY using a government computer during work hours. Why do you suppose someone needs to be reminded NOT to do such things when you're supposed to be at work? Hmmm....

5) Stein is a Meteorlogical guy. Translation - he's a fucking weatherman at Edson Range on Camp Pendleton supporting the recruits from MCRD learning how to fire their rifle. What fucking possible illegal act is he going to be ordered to perform? Launch a weather balloon at night? Predict that a blizzard will occur in August in San Diego county?

6) He deployed to a combat zone ONCE in his career. What do you suppose a weatherman like him does in Iraq? He stays at a major installation like an airbase, launches a weather balloon, downloads the latest satellite weather photos, works in a air-conditioned space (possibly a bunker), and takes hot showers every night! WHAT THE FUCK ILLEGAL ACT IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO PERFORM OVER THERE?!?!

7) He finds out he's going to receive an admin seperation - possibly what he wanted all along. After does he realizes that he's going lose all his benefits does he hire a civilian lawyer and file a lawsuit against the Marine Corps.

8) If you bad-mouthed your boss in the civilian world on Twitter, Facebook, or any other public forum, would you expect to keep your job?

Stein is a PUSSY. He rose a ruckus when he thought he had the Constitutional right to say whatever he wants to about anyone in his Chain-of-Command while full immunity while in uniform. He kept raising the stakes and causing more ruckus until finally he got the attention of CGs and COs. He found out he's not an expert in military law, no matter how smart he thinks he is. He's paying the price and whining about it to anyone who'll listen to him. I wouldn't trust him to have my back at any combat zone in any clime and place.

Here's the legal opinion of someone who IS an expert in military law -> Opinion of Gary D Solis, Lt Col USMC (ret)
I agree, I don't know if pussy is the correct term but he is a dumbass for sure and a failure as a Sargent of Marines. We demand and expect more from our NCO's. I am glad they removed him from the ranks of Non Commissioned Officers.
__________________
The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old April 26th, 2012, 06:11 AM
TANK's Avatar
TANK TANK is offline
S/F not just a saying
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nort Cackalacky
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afterburner Decals Scott View Post
Legit question...how many more contraventions of the constitution have to occur before the military is complicit in protecting a domestic enemy?
That is a great mental exercise. How is it a domestic enemy if elected officials vote on something, they are reelected based on there vote, and say the Supreme Court upholds it. Weather you agree with the topic or not how is it not constitutional if all the 3 branches agree on it. That is slippery slope if then you want the military to say fuck it, where taken over cause you guys are not doing it "right" (whatever right might be).

Quote:
The oath is to the constitution, not the POTUS. I have to admit to being incredibly uneasy with the level of willingness I see military people have to use the UCMJ as the justification to squash dissent of illegality in the government.
You signed the contract, which means you are now governed by the UCMJ. As a service member you are entitled to your opinions and the right to vote. You are not entitled to share that opinion.

Quote:
At what point is the UCMJ the enemy of the constitution and the oath?
That is a great mental exercise also. Take gays in the military. The Senate makes the laws of the UCMJ and IIRC the Supreme Court upheld the rule or the right of the Senate to make the rules. How is that not constitutional?
__________________
The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Last edited by TANK; April 26th, 2012 at 06:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 26th, 2012, 07:57 AM
wymanv's Avatar
wymanv wymanv is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Livingston MT
Posts: 591
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by John B View Post
Stein is a class-A, jack-ass, ...(snipped for space)...and I'm embarrassed to associated with a pussy like Stein.

As a former Marine, I completely agree.

Ken
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 26th, 2012, 08:16 AM
galileo1's Avatar
galileo1 galileo1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland - USA
Posts: 1,595
Default

Interesting stuff, gents. For someone like me who never served, and who has negative opinions of our current president, I really did feel Stein had been punished unjustly for his opinions. Reading comments from people like you who serve/served, I now understand why the USMC had to do it. I didn't know he was counseled on more than one occasion about this. I guess he did indeed get what he deserved.
__________________
Rob


"3 - 2 - 1...Fight's on"

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e22/robertCarvallo/1-2.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 26th, 2012, 09:09 AM
Eddie M.'s Avatar
Eddie M. Eddie M. is offline
Kitbasher
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 2,728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Roof View Post
To be honest, whether he was counseled or not (or how many times) is completely irrelevant.

There are simply some things you cannot or do not do while in uniform.
Boy Howdy! Back in my day it was alright to get drunk and chase women, but there will be hell to pay if you spoke your mind in front of the wrong people. We protect the 1st amendment, but while we were in the uniform, we don't get the right to use it and that's the way it is. I signed the papers, I assumed the responsibly and I had no problem with it.

In the same breath, I didn't serve under a person who is called the CIC today. I might have gotten in trouble in this day and age.
__________________
"The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Last edited by Eddie M.; April 26th, 2012 at 09:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 26th, 2012, 09:24 AM
GW8345 GW8345 is offline
Old Cranky Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,749
Default

As I use to tell my folks when they started bitching about something that came down from higher up, ďwe are here to protect democracy, not practice itĒ.

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 26th, 2012, 10:07 AM
Big Texan's Avatar
Big Texan Big Texan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Amarillo, Texas
Posts: 5,328
Default

Interesting subject.

You don't lose your 1st Amendment right to free speech while in service, you just can't do it while wearing the uniform. This being said, I don't know what this Marine Sgt. said. Critical speech is one thing, but speech that is defamatory in gross ways, can not be tolerated in the military.

Under Clinton's reign of power, we called the prez "Slick Willy" and other things. Didn't agree with him or Al Gore on any thing. In general, the military by and large, didn't care for these individuals at all. We didn't have facebook or twitter back then, but that didn't stop many of us speaking our minds on these losers. This was largely between individuals and was not put out there for public consumption, for the world to see.

Regarding facebook and twitter, the social media of the day, they are private unless you post to the world. If this Sgt was merely posting to friends, how can he be prosecuted for anything? If he posted to the world, then yes, he would be and could be held accountable for things he posted. As it appears, he posted to the world. He was asked to stop. He didn't, so, he pays the price.

We have to be careful here not to infringe on the freedom of speech. We do have a tyrannical govt. as it stands, regardless of party or who is POTUS. Our liberties are slowly and surely being taken away in the guise of safety, security, or it's what's best for us, type of mentality. We are being divided by race, color, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preference, young, old, poor, and rich. The govt. is dividing and conquering our nation. You can blow me off on this, but it is purely evident and has been going on for a while. We are this close >< of being subjects and not citizens. The nation is truly sleep walking and in some ways, complicit. I don't know what the answer is, but we had better wake up to this and start reigning the govt in or we will lose what we have been given. It may already be too late.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 26th, 2012, 11:20 AM
NasaNick's Avatar
NasaNick NasaNick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John B View Post
Stein is a class-A, jack-ass, loud-mouth, small-dick village idiot.

I got the word through the grapevine that he was informally and formally counselled about his actions (via the "senior SNCO network" at Pendleton - funny thing is a lot of those SNCOs used to be in the "LCpl network" with me) on more than one occasion over the past 2 years. Here's my dirt-simple common-sense logic -

1) You wouldn't spray paint "My squad leader is an idiot and I refuse to follow his orders" on the wall of the barracks without repurcussions, so why does he think its okay to do it on-line on a public forum about anyone else in his chain-of-command?

2) He was formally counselled about make sure to represent himself as a private citizen (ie "not a representative of the Marine Corps") when he posted his political opinions on-line. What does he do? He creates his own "pseudo-Tea Party" website to post his opinion "as a Marine". Only after he gets the attention of his command AGAIN, does he change his words from his wording from "orders" to "illegal orders".

3) He is (or maybe "was") a Sergeant. If one of his Lance Corporals mouthed-off about him within earshot of his fellow NCOs, what would he expect his fellow NCOs to do? If that same Lance Corporal told Sgt Stein "I'm not going to follow your or the Platoon Leader's orders", how would you expect him to react?

4) He was also formally counselled NOT to post his opinions ESPECIALLY using a government computer during work hours. Why do you suppose someone needs to be reminded NOT to do such things when you're supposed to be at work? Hmmm....

5) Stein is a Meteorlogical guy. Translation - he's a fucking weatherman at Edson Range on Camp Pendleton supporting the recruits from MCRD learning how to fire their rifle. What fucking possible illegal act is he going to be ordered to perform? Launch a weather balloon at night? Predict that a blizzard will occur in August in San Diego county?

6) He deployed to a combat zone ONCE in his career. What do you suppose a weatherman like him does in Iraq? He stays at a major installation like an airbase, launches a weather balloon, downloads the latest satellite weather photos, works in a air-conditioned space (possibly a bunker), and takes hot showers every night! WHAT THE FUCK ILLEGAL ACT IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO PERFORM OVER THERE?!?!

7) He finds out he's going to receive an admin seperation - possibly what he wanted all along. After does he realizes that he's going lose all his benefits does he hire a civilian lawyer and file a lawsuit against the Marine Corps.

8) If you bad-mouthed your boss in the civilian world on Twitter, Facebook, or any other public forum, would you expect to keep your job?

Stein is a PUSSY. He rose a ruckus when he thought he had the Constitutional right to say whatever he wants to about anyone in his Chain-of-Command while full immunity while in uniform. He kept raising the stakes and causing more ruckus until finally he got the attention of CGs and COs. He found out he's not an expert in military law, no matter how smart he thinks he is. He's paying the price and whining about it to anyone who'll listen to him. I wouldn't trust him to have my back at any combat zone in any clime and place.

Here's the legal opinion of someone who IS an expert in military law -> Opinion of Gary D Solis, Lt Col USMC (ret)

BTW - I was a Sergeant in the Marine Corps and I'm embarrassed to associated with a pussy like Stein.
Bravo! Well said Marine!
Semper Fi! This guy needed thrown out on his ass, and as a private, not a Lance Corporal. A Lance Corporal is someone worthy of becoming an NCO. LCpl's run fire teams when there isn't a Cpl in the squad. LCpl's are in charge of work parties to determine their capacity for further responsibility of larger organizations. LCpl's get shit done. This fuck may have made it through boot camp and got to be called a Marine, but he was not a Marine.

There are ways to express your disagreement with higher decisions and policies, Facebook and Twitter are not them.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old April 26th, 2012, 11:46 AM
GW8345 GW8345 is offline
Old Cranky Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Texan View Post
Interesting subject.

You don't lose your 1st Amendment right to free speech while in service, you just can't do it while wearing the uniform. This being said, I don't know what this Marine Sgt. said. Critical speech is one thing, but speech that is defamatory in gross ways, can not be tolerated in the military.

Under Clinton's reign of power, we called the prez "Slick Willy" and other things. Didn't agree with him or Al Gore on any thing. In general, the military by and large, didn't care for these individuals at all. We didn't have facebook or twitter back then, but that didn't stop many of us speaking our minds on these losers. This was largely between individuals and was not put out there for public consumption, for the world to see.

Regarding facebook and twitter, the social media of the day, they are private unless you post to the world. If this Sgt was merely posting to friends, how can he be prosecuted for anything? If he posted to the world, then yes, he would be and could be held accountable for things he posted. As it appears, he posted to the world. He was asked to stop. He didn't, so, he pays the price.

We have to be careful here not to infringe on the freedom of speech. We do have a tyrannical govt. as it stands, regardless of party or who is POTUS. Our liberties are slowly and surely being taken away in the guise of safety, security, or it's what's best for us, type of mentality. We are being divided by race, color, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preference, young, old, poor, and rich. The govt. is dividing and conquering our nation. You can blow me off on this, but it is purely evident and has been going on for a while. We are this close >< of being subjects and not citizens. The nation is truly sleep walking and in some ways, complicit. I don't know what the answer is, but we had better wake up to this and start reigning the govt in or we will lose what we have been given. It may already be too late.
BT,

Not to start an argument but you do lose part of your 1st amendment rights when you are in the military, you cannot openly criticize the Chain of Command as a member of the US Military. You also cannot affiliate yourself as a member of the US Military for political reason/actions.

What Sgt. Stein did was against regulations, was ordered (on numerous occasions) to stop, counseled on the repercussions of his actions and informed that if he did not stop he would be subjected to disciplinary actions. Yet he continued to disobey orders, ignore regulations and brought discredit upon himself and the USMC. He knew what he was doing was wrong and continued to do it; he should have been thrown in the brig for 60 days, forfeiture of half months pay for two months, reduced in rank to E-1 and given a BCD.

Would you tolerate one of your Airman publicly bashing the Chain of Command after you order him/her to stop? How would that Airman’s action reflect on yours and your chain of commands leadership ability after everyone in the chain of command from yourself up to the Commanding Officer of the Wing had told him/her to stop? Personally, if he worked for me, he and I would have had a “discussion” out at the RSL (Ready Service Locker, i.e. Magazines next to the flight line) or in the catwalk, and I don’t think he would be talking much afterwards if you know what I mean.

What we did in the 90’s during Clinton does not compare to what he did. We (yes I spoke ill of Clinton a few times while in the shop) did not openly speak publicly for the whole world to see, we did it in private conversations while in the work space and even that was against regulations.

Though I don’t agree with the current administration at all, we cannot start letting our Sailors, Marines, Airman and Troops engage in the actions that Sgt. Stein did, it’s a slippery slope and once started down it there is no going back. Who decides what criticism is reasonable/acceptable and what is not?

The Sgt should have just kept his mouth shut and did his time, like we all did when Clinton was in office. Instead, he decided that he would become national news and hoped to get sympathy from those in uniform who supported his position, too bad he failed to realize that 99.9999% of those in uniform are professionals and recognized him for what he is, a drama grabbing asshat.

No matter who is in office, or what politician it is, there is no place for those actions, it brings discredit upon oneself and the service in general; it reflects oneself as unprofessional and the service as divisive to the Commander in Chief. To me, what he did ranks right up there with the homosexual service members parading around in their uniforms to protest the DADT policy, they both got what they deserved……….dismissed from the service.

Also, whether you are in uniform or not, you are still a US Military Service Member 24/7/365. Remember, it’s not just a job, it’s a life style. If you don’t like the rules, don’t join, if you are already in, do your time and quietly get out, then go about your business as you please. The leadership in the service has enough to do making sure the mission gets accomplished without having to deal with some snot nose kid who thinks he’s smarter than the entire service and feels it’s his “right” to do as he pleases; if he wanted to do he could join the TSA.

Not trying to lecture or argue, just voicing an opinion in response to your comment.

V/R
Gerry

Last edited by GW8345; April 26th, 2012 at 11:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old April 26th, 2012, 12:13 PM
TANK's Avatar
TANK TANK is offline
S/F not just a saying
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nort Cackalacky
Posts: 2,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW8345 View Post
Personally, if he worked for me, he and I would have had a ďdiscussionĒ out at the RSL (Ready Service Locker, i.e. Magazines next to the flight line) or in the catwalk, and I donít think he would be talking much afterwards if you know what I mean.
We called it treeline counseling.

Quote:
Also, whether you are in uniform or not, you are still a US Military Service Member 24/7/365. Remember, itís not just a job, itís a life style.
To cross jump threads, this is why you need to have an all volunteer force and not a continuous draft.
__________________
The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old April 26th, 2012, 12:27 PM
Big Texan's Avatar
Big Texan Big Texan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Amarillo, Texas
Posts: 5,328
Default

Gerry, I agree with you and others on this point. You can't go out in public and do this kinda thing. In private, with your buds, you can say whatever the hell you want, and we sure as hell did when Clinton was in office! We just didn't do it in a public venue!

Yes, you respect the office, but you're still entitled to you opinion. You just can't be stupid about it and you sure as hell don't do it in public.

From what I understand, yep, he deserved what he got...in total agreement. He was an idiot who had been warned. No different than that female B-52 pilot having an adulterous affair with an elisted man years ago. She was warned several times, she wouldn't stop, she got hammered.

I'm not sticking up for this Marine at all. I'm saying be careful on stepping on free speech. I'm well aware of the regulations. Evidently, it seems regulations need to be updated and a policy drawn up for this new social media.

Add to this...the screed that the Army Major Jihadist put on his emails that were on govt. computers and no one did a damn thing. He then goes and kills people at Ft. Hood. They're still not calling this a terrorist act. Had the command done something about this, and they had the authority to do so, look how many people wouldn't have lost their lives! They didn't out of fear of political correctness! I'm just throwing this in as a caveat.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old April 26th, 2012, 12:47 PM
GW8345 GW8345 is offline
Old Cranky Bastard
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Texan View Post
Gerry, I agree with you and others on this point. You can't go out in public and do this kinda thing. In private, with your buds, you can say whatever the hell you want, and we sure as hell did when Clinton was in office! We just didn't do it in a public venue!

Yes, you respect the office, but you're still entitled to you opinion. You just can't be stupid about it and you sure as hell don't do it in public.

From what I understand, yep, he deserved what he got...in total agreement. He was an idiot who had been warned. No different than that female B-52 pilot having an adulterous affair with an elisted man years ago. She was warned several times, she wouldn't stop, she got hammered.

I'm not sticking up for this Marine at all. I'm saying be careful on stepping on free speech. I'm well aware of the regulations. Evidently, it seems regulations need to be updated and a policy drawn up for this new social media.

Add to this...the screed that the Army Major Jihadist put on his emails that were on govt. computers and no one did a damn thing. He then goes and kills people at Ft. Hood. They're still not calling this a terrorist act. Had the command done something about this, and they had the authority to do so, look how many people wouldn't have lost their lives! They didn't out of fear of political correctness! I'm just throwing this in as a caveat.
Two points.

1. This is not a free speech issue; it's a Marine disobeying orders issue.

2. I don't see how the Ft Hood shooter and this issue have anything in common, two totally separate issues. The Ft Hood issue is that the CoC did not follow regulations of a PC fear. This issue has nothing to do with being PC, it has to do with service members following orders and regulation even when they donít agree with them. Everyone who has worn the uniform of a US Military Member has done that, itís part of being in the military and sets us apart from 3rd world military forces.

And yes, you are entitled to your opinion, youíre just not entitled to share with others.

Gerry
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.