Marine wants President out.
Options
MikeSEA
Posts: 1,074 Member
Generally I don't have a problem with this. I think marines are citizens and are allowed to think the President should be voted out or not just like anyone else.
However...does an active duty marine have the right to refer to the President as a target on a pro-tea party/anti-obama website? It's an interesting question, and one that I lack the legal knowledge to answer with any authority. It is my vague understanding that members of the military are, in fact, not afforded the same first amendment rights as civilians. If so how does this play into this issue?
Additionally, the marine claims he was indeed speaking as a civilian when he made those comments on the website. It raises the question of whether or not active duty marines can act as civilians while they serve (at least with regard to Free Speech).
At the very least, this seems like an error of professionalism. I don't think someone can really identify themselves as a member of the military, publicly criticize the commander in chief, and use military language (even if meant figuratively) to do it.
However...does an active duty marine have the right to refer to the President as a target on a pro-tea party/anti-obama website? It's an interesting question, and one that I lack the legal knowledge to answer with any authority. It is my vague understanding that members of the military are, in fact, not afforded the same first amendment rights as civilians. If so how does this play into this issue?
Additionally, the marine claims he was indeed speaking as a civilian when he made those comments on the website. It raises the question of whether or not active duty marines can act as civilians while they serve (at least with regard to Free Speech).
At the very least, this seems like an error of professionalism. I don't think someone can really identify themselves as a member of the military, publicly criticize the commander in chief, and use military language (even if meant figuratively) to do it.
0
Replies
-
There are actually pretty clear rules on what active duty military can and cannot say when it comes to political activity. On first read, it appears that this marine violated these restrictions in several different aspects. While active duty military are allowed to vote, write letters to the editor, donate to campaigns, and sign petitions, there are several things they are not allowed to do in order to maintain the impartiality of the military.
Here's a pretty good article on what active duty military can and can't do when it comes to political activity: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm
Here are some points I believe that this marine has violatedCannot - Participate in partisan political fundraising activities, rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator.
Cannot -Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. However, letters to the editor are allowed.
Cannot - Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.
Cannot - Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.
When someone joins the volunteer armed forces, the agree to abide by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. That includes the restrictions on political activity. So when the marine agreed to join the military, he agreed to give up certain rights.
Of even bigger concern is that the marine has made statements indicating that he would choose not to follow orders from the President that he doesn't agree with. This is a big no-no, as military members are not allowed to interpret their own orders.
My guess is that the military will want this to go away, so they'll give the guy a slap on the wrist and be done with it. But I think it's pretty clear that he unequivocally violated the UMCJ.0 -
I'm not going to state my opinion on if he was in the wrong or not but I will state what I think should be allowed.
The men and women that serve see first hand what the wars we fight are about. Civilians at home can argue about what they think the wars are about (greed, oil, terrorism, whatever) but when it comes down to it, the military men and women are the ones performing the tasks and risking their lives. I understand that what they say can have an effect on security so sometimes confidentiality is necessary but as far as them having an opinion, they should be allowed to. So for a young man joins to serve his country, gets sent to a different country to do things he doesn't believe are right, he can't have an opinion. All the while he is taking orders from a man in a suit, who has never fought or served his country and whose interest is power.
Yeah, I know. Life isn't fair..0 -
He joined KNOWING the rules. If he didn't like them he shouldn't have volunteered. I can see where someone who is drafted might be in a different situation but even then, they still have to follow the rules.I'm not going to state my opinion on if he was in the wrong or not but I will state what I think should be allowed.
The men and women that serve see first hand what the wars we fight are about. Civilians at home can argue about what they think the wars are about (greed, oil, terrorism, whatever) but when it comes down to it, the military men and women are the ones performing the tasks and risking their lives. I understand that what they say can have an effect on security so sometimes confidentiality is necessary but as far as them having an opinion, they should be allowed to. So for a young man joins to serve his country, gets sent to a different country to do things he doesn't believe are right, he can't have an opinion. All the while he is taking orders from a man in a suit, who has never fought or served his country and whose interest is power.
Yeah, I know. Life isn't fair..
Not sure if you are talking about Bush or Obama but regardless, rules are rules.All the while he is taking orders from a man in a suit, who has never fought or served his country and whose interest is power.0 -
This is so complex, I don't know how to feel. I know the reasons I think that a military person should be able to protest a President, but this guy is just a Tea Party douche bag protesting a president who has continued policies or a president who he probably fully supported.
Sort of cracks me up that when Bush was Prez, all my liberal friends were constantly complaining about his violations of the constitution while conservatives were dead set on following the orders of the Commander in Chief.
Now with Obama, all of my liberal friends tell conservatives tough ****, he's the Commander in Chief and the conservatives are suddenly constitutionalists.0 -
He joined KNOWING the rules. If he didn't like them he shouldn't have volunteered. I can see where someone who is drafted might be in a different situation but even then, they still have to follow the rules.I'm not going to state my opinion on if he was in the wrong or not but I will state what I think should be allowed.
The men and women that serve see first hand what the wars we fight are about. Civilians at home can argue about what they think the wars are about (greed, oil, terrorism, whatever) but when it comes down to it, the military men and women are the ones performing the tasks and risking their lives. I understand that what they say can have an effect on security so sometimes confidentiality is necessary but as far as them having an opinion, they should be allowed to. So for a young man joins to serve his country, gets sent to a different country to do things he doesn't believe are right, he can't have an opinion. All the while he is taking orders from a man in a suit, who has never fought or served his country and whose interest is power.
Yeah, I know. Life isn't fair..
Not sure if you are talking about Bush or Obama but regardless, rules are rules.All the while he is taking orders from a man in a suit, who has never fought or served his country and whose interest is power.
Well currently, Obama. I HATE having a commander in chief that knows nothing about military service.. Still, any past president is still a man in a suit giving orders, not the one doing the dirty work. Maybe I just watch too much of The Unit and Army Wives... As far as rules go- Just because something is a rule doesn't make it right. It was once a rule to segregate blacks from whites...0 -
Well currently, Obama. I HATE having a commander in chief that knows nothing about military service.. Still, any past president is still a man in a suit giving orders, not the one doing the dirty work. Maybe I just watch too much of The Unit and Army Wives... As far as rules go- Just because something is a rule doesn't make it right. It was once a rule to segregate blacks from whites...
America has always had and will always had a CIVILIAN run military in the country. It's one of the fundamental principles of our Democracy. The civilian leadership has always made the decisions when it comes to use of the military in this country. It's what keeps us from becoming a military dictatorship. I could have a whole debate with you on this President's accomplishments as commander and chief, but that's a different debate for a different day.
Members of the military swear follow the UMCJ, which is a completely separate code of rules and regulations than civilian code. There's a whole lot of things you can't do as an active member of the military that you can do as a civilian, and it doesn't just stop at political activity.
The political rules were put in place because of the threat that military interference in civilian elections would lead to a military dictatorship. That is what these rules are trying to prevent. Now I think that times have changed and a member of the military posting an article or starting a Facebook group doesn't pose a threat to our democracy, so maybe the rules need to be updated to better reflect the changing technological world.
But I can't feel one bit bad for the guy if they boot him from the service for this. The rules on political participation by active duty military members are very clear, and they are absolutely constitutional.0 -
John McCain doesn't think we should have went in after Osama Bin Laden... He would have stayed in Iraq and made that his main focus in addition to Afghanistan. AND he wanted to go into Iran. I don't know how anyone could say that would have been the "right" direction for our country. Not that I have been a big fan of our wars recently but at least they got a few high up bad guys and are working on closing up shop. I'll take that over the never ending expansion...
Chain of command and the rules that exist within not just the military but the police, fire etc. exist for a reason. If he is not interested in those rules he does not have to sign up. Not to mention what a wuss for his back peddle lol If he is going to go out with a bang he should at least be true to himself as opposed to changing his post around and wussing out.0 -
Generally I don't have a problem with this. I think marines are citizens and are allowed to think the President should be voted out or not just like anyone else.
However...does an active duty marine have the right to refer to the President as a target on a pro-tea party/anti-obama website? It's an interesting question, and one that I lack the legal knowledge to answer with any authority. It is my vague understanding that members of the military are, in fact, not afforded the same first amendment rights as civilians. If so how does this play into this issue?
Additionally, the marine claims he was indeed speaking as a civilian when he made those comments on the website. It raises the question of whether or not active duty marines can act as civilians while they serve (at least with regard to Free Speech).
At the very least, this seems like an error of professionalism. I don't think someone can really identify themselves as a member of the military, publicly criticize the commander in chief, and use military language (even if meant figuratively) to do it.
G.I. refers to "Government Issue". This Marine cannot to segment his life between Military and Civilian. He is a Marine 24 hours a day and should conduct himself as such. If he works his way up the Chain of Command, he will ultimately arrive at President Obama; his highest Commander. The Commander in Chief.
As an Ex-Marine, I can guarantee you that his actions are not acceptable. I believe someone will point that out to him very soon.0 -
Generally I don't have a problem with this. I think marines are citizens and are allowed to think the President should be voted out or not just like anyone else.
However...does an active duty marine have the right to refer to the President as a target on a pro-tea party/anti-obama website? It's an interesting question, and one that I lack the legal knowledge to answer with any authority. It is my vague understanding that members of the military are, in fact, not afforded the same first amendment rights as civilians. If so how does this play into this issue?
Additionally, the marine claims he was indeed speaking as a civilian when he made those comments on the website. It raises the question of whether or not active duty marines can act as civilians while they serve (at least with regard to Free Speech).
At the very least, this seems like an error of professionalism. I don't think someone can really identify themselves as a member of the military, publicly criticize the commander in chief, and use military language (even if meant figuratively) to do it.
G.I. refers to "Government Issue". This Marine cannot to segment his life between Military and Civilian. He is a Marine 24 hours a day and should conduct himself as such. If he works his way up the Chain of Command, he will ultimately arrive at President Obama; his highest Commander. The Commander in Chief.
As an Ex-Marine, I can guarantee you that his actions are not acceptable. I believe someone will point that out to him very soon.
I'm in much agreement with you, but here's my issue with both Bush and Obama. Every GI takes an oath to defend the constituion. In my eyes, ever since the Patriot Act all oaths should have been void since much of the Bill of Rights has been shredded. Not that anyone really cares.
But from a personal standpoint, here's the problem with military personel sounding off about politics. I joined the army in 2001. I voted for Bush, but within a year of his presidency, his constant vacationing, the worst terrorist attack in american history, and the fact he couldn't put coherent sentences together, I couldn't stand the guy. When the whole build up and propoganda to invade Iraq started, I really started having my doubts.
People kept associating 9/11 with Saddam and I never saw proof of that. I had the bad feeling that me and my friends were about to get screwed by the Military Industrialists for a profit. But here's the problem I had, I didn't KNOW. Sure, I had hunches (which I think turned out to be 100% accurate), but as a soldier, I had to trust my chain of command. I had no idea what secret intel the President and CIA had that they weren't sharing.
I couldn't imagine the dishonor of protesting the war as a cav scout, only to find out after I made a big stink that Saddam was actually building nukes (not that it happened). Truth is, in order for a military to function, besides unlawful orders like raping and slaughtering innocent citizens, personel need to keep their mouths shut. It is the civilian sectors resposiblity to reign in their leaders, not the people who already sacrificed their blood sweat and tears to defend them.
But, sadly, that will never happen. 70% of this nation thought Saddam was connected to 9/11. It's a shame, but more people in this nation put more thought into their choice for American Idol than who they elect to public office, and it's really beginning to show.0 -
There's a word for a country run by the military - and that word is "Junta". It doesn't usually turn out well. Muammar Gadafi was a "Colonel", remember? As an ex-squid I gotta concur with the dog. This wasn't cool, and if he's put out a real name/rank/duty station, I suspect a friendly JAG officer will want to talk with him soon.
Old Fred Thompson movie, I don't remember it all and I probably don't have it right, but the line was:
"For over 200 years this army has obeyed the orders of the elected civilian leadership. Now they weren't always right, and they weren't always wise,,, but they were always elected. That's the way it is, and the way it's gotta be".0 -
I do not want to derail this great debate that you guys are having.
But I wanted to point out, to Adrian, that nobody I have ever heard of/talked to/interacted with has ever claimed that Saddam had anthing to do with 9/11.
He was a very bad guy. Now he has been brought to justice. Everyone wants to talk trash on Bush, but before Bush, Saddam was runninig his rape rooms in Iraq. Now there are hundreds of new newspapers and women getting educated and actual freedom is growing over there. How can anyone act as though we didn't do the right thing by bringing Saddam to justice?0 -
At various times over the past decade over half the population either believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or weren't sure. At one point 49% thought that he was definitely responsible. Bush linked him to AlQuada numerous times in an effort to sell his war. In his 2002 SOTU Bush mentioned Saddam 19 times. He didn't mention OBL at all. 4 Months after 9/11 and Bush didn't care about OBL.I do not want to derail this great debate that you guys are having.
But I wanted to point out, to Adrian, that nobody I have ever heard of/talked to/interacted with has ever claimed that Saddam had anthing to do with 9/11.
He was a very bad guy. Now he has been brought to justice. Everyone wants to talk trash on Bush, but before Bush, Saddam was runninig his rape rooms in Iraq. Now there are hundreds of new newspapers and women getting educated and actual freedom is growing over there. How can anyone act as though we didn't do the right thing by bringing Saddam to justice?0 -
At various times over the past decade over half the population either believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or weren't sure. At one point 49% thought that he was definitely responsible. Bush linked him to AlQuada numerous times in an effort to sell his war. In his 2002 SOTU Bush mentioned Saddam 19 times. He didn't mention OBL at all. 4 Months after 9/11 and Bush didn't care about OBL.I do not want to derail this great debate that you guys are having.
But I wanted to point out, to Adrian, that nobody I have ever heard of/talked to/interacted with has ever claimed that Saddam had anthing to do with 9/11.
He was a very bad guy. Now he has been brought to justice. Everyone wants to talk trash on Bush, but before Bush, Saddam was runninig his rape rooms in Iraq. Now there are hundreds of new newspapers and women getting educated and actual freedom is growing over there. How can anyone act as though we didn't do the right thing by bringing Saddam to justice?
This.
No one is saying Saddam was a great guy. I've seen what a *kitten* he was first hand....but the whole Bush admin insinuated consitently that he was somehow linked to 9/11, also stating that if Saddam got a nuke, the next 9/11 would be a mushroom cloud. Anyone who tried to stop that admins propoganda machine was torn apart, lest we forget what they did to the very man who they sent to Africa to verify the Nigerian yellow cake theory, Joe Wilson. As soon as he said that it was an unfounded rumor and refused to tote the line that Saddam was a nuclear threat, they outed his wife from the CIA as retribution. Truth is, that admin used 9/11 to invade Iraq, something they had been planning all along. People could have made the case for the invasion on other issues, but they didn't they linked him to terrorism.
As far a Saddam's rape rooms, I am aware of them, I've been in one. I also have seen what happened when we invaded with no exit strategy and not thought to how we run the country after we destablized it, namely foreign fighters killing our soliders and women and children.0 -
Generally I don't have a problem with this. I think marines are citizens and are allowed to think the President should be voted out or not just like anyone else.
However...does an active duty marine have the right to refer to the President as a target on a pro-tea party/anti-obama website? It's an interesting question, and one that I lack the legal knowledge to answer with any authority. It is my vague understanding that members of the military are, in fact, not afforded the same first amendment rights as civilians. If so how does this play into this issue?
Additionally, the marine claims he was indeed speaking as a civilian when he made those comments on the website. It raises the question of whether or not active duty marines can act as civilians while they serve (at least with regard to Free Speech).
At the very least, this seems like an error of professionalism. I don't think someone can really identify themselves as a member of the military, publicly criticize the commander in chief, and use military language (even if meant figuratively) to do it.
G.I. refers to "Government Issue". This Marine cannot to segment his life between Military and Civilian. He is a Marine 24 hours a day and should conduct himself as such. If he works his way up the Chain of Command, he will ultimately arrive at President Obama; his highest Commander. The Commander in Chief.
As an Ex-Marine, I can guarantee you that his actions are not acceptable. I believe someone will point that out to him very soon.
As a wife of a veteran, this is spot on. The marine in question may very well find himself court-marshalled or possibly jailed for this stuff. It'd be a slap on the wrist if he got dishonorably discharged. I've seen guys tossed in jail for 6 months for lesser offenses.
Others have done a very good job of explaining why this is the case, namely to prevent military interference in civilian electoral matters. Furthermore, the president is the commander-in-chief and this guy's direct boss. If he doesn't like Obama, he has the right to cast his vote or attend rallies, but he does not reserve the right to speak out in this manner.0 -
I do not want to derail this great debate that you guys are having.
But I wanted to point out, to Adrian, that nobody I have ever heard of/talked to/interacted with has ever claimed that Saddam had anthing to do with 9/11.
He was a very bad guy. Now he has been brought to justice. Everyone wants to talk trash on Bush, but before Bush, Saddam was runninig his rape rooms in Iraq. Now there are hundreds of new newspapers and women getting educated and actual freedom is growing over there. How can anyone act as though we didn't do the right thing by bringing Saddam to justice?
He would have been gone long ago had it not been for the modern Republican party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics0 -
Well currently, Obama. I HATE having a commander in chief that knows nothing about military service.. Still, any past president is still a man in a suit giving orders, not the one doing the dirty work. Maybe I just watch too much of The Unit and Army Wives... As far as rules go- Just because something is a rule doesn't make it right. It was once a rule to segregate blacks from whites...
America has always had and will always had a CIVILIAN run military in the country. It's one of the fundamental principles of our Democracy. The civilian leadership has always made the decisions when it comes to use of the military in this country. It's what keeps us from becoming a military dictatorship. I could have a whole debate with you on this President's accomplishments as commander and chief, but that's a different debate for a different day.
Members of the military swear follow the UMCJ, which is a completely separate code of rules and regulations than civilian code. There's a whole lot of things you can't do as an active member of the military that you can do as a civilian, and it doesn't just stop at political activity.
The political rules were put in place because of the threat that military interference in civilian elections would lead to a military dictatorship. That is what these rules are trying to prevent. Now I think that times have changed and a member of the military posting an article or starting a Facebook group doesn't pose a threat to our democracy, so maybe the rules need to be updated to better reflect the changing technological world.
But I can't feel one bit bad for the guy if they boot him from the service for this. The rules on political participation by active duty military members are very clear, and they are absolutely constitutional.
If you speak to many senior military officers, they are absolutely 100% in favor of civilian control of the military. It's one of the most important characteristics of a democracy. Look at the adverse outcomes of any country where the military exerts too much control over civilian government.
One doesn't need detailed knowledge of the minutiae of military operations to set foreign policy and national security objectives. Any president, regardless of background, has plenty of people around him to provide information, including copious numbers of senior military officers. He needs to have intelligence, a grasp of international issues, the ability to evaluate information and options, etc.
Every contemporary account of Obama's administration has clearly revealed that he possesses all of these attributes--more than GW Bush, Clinton, or Reagan. During the deliberations leading up to the raid on bin Laden's compound, more than one senior military official has stated on the record that Obama was "the smartest person in the room" and exerted outstanding leadership.
Statements like the ones made by this guy and other teabaggers are not based in fact-they seem to be meant to delegitimize Obama, both as President and as a man. Like the accusations that he is a Muslim, or a Socialist, or not a US Citizen, or only achieved success because of affirmative action, it is a common tactic to paint him as an "alien" and an "outsider". It's easier than trying to actually have to debate on the merits of his programs or actions.0 -
I don't mind that the military is run by a civilian and I agree that total military control would be a horrible thing. I at least think that civilian should have military experience, just so he can fully grasp what he is responsible for.
Not sure how much this means as it comes from a scene on a tv show but a Colonel in special ops had a team waiting to be extracted. A member of a sub-committee had to sign off in order for this team to be extracted. The Colonel left post and flew to DC to find a member of this sub committee and all of them were "too busy" with other meetings, dinners, even massages to meet up with the colonel right away. In those civilian lesgislators eyes this team was sitting in a hotel waiting to come home, when they were actually sitting on a beach fighting for their lives while waiting for someone sign sign a piece of paper so someone could get them out. As the colonel said, the "suits in Washington" were responsible for these men's lives and the ship that was to extract them ended up having to leave because they didn't get the go-ahead in time.
Yes it is a tv show but they are also very real scenarios. I'm sure that exact thing has happened numerous times. So while you don't need military experience to known foreign policy and set security objectives, you DO need it to fully grasp what your actions are doing or to have knowledge of what goes on with the men and women you are leading.0 -
I don't mind that the military is run by a civilian and I agree that total military control would be a horrible thing. I at least think that civilian should have military experience, just so he can fully grasp what he is responsible for.
Not sure how much this means as it comes from a scene on a tv show but a Colonel in special ops had a team waiting to be extracted. A member of a sub-committee had to sign off in order for this team to be extracted. The Colonel left post and flew to DC to find a member of this sub committee and all of them were "too busy" with other meetings, dinners, even massages to meet up with the colonel right away. In those civilian lesgislators eyes this team was sitting in a hotel waiting to come home, when they were actually sitting on a beach fighting for their lives while waiting for someone sign sign a piece of paper so someone could get them out. As the colonel said, the "suits in Washington" were responsible for these men's lives and the ship that was to extract them ended up having to leave because they didn't get the go-ahead in time.
Yes it is a tv show but they are also very real scenarios. I'm sure that exact thing has happened numerous times. So while you don't need military experience to known foreign policy and set security objectives, you DO need it to fully grasp what your actions are doing or to have knowledge of what goes on with the men and women you are leading.
How can you "be sure" with only a TV show as your "proof". And congressional subcommittees do not give military orders.
As far as making "military experience" a prerequisite--you are going to ensure a shrinking and narrow pool of prospective candidates. With an all-volunteer armed forces, the number of citizens who have military experience is an ever-shrinking number. (whether or not that's a good thing is a different topic).
IMO, I think too much reliance on "hands on" experience is a negative. At the very least, it increases the risk of "groupthink" and lowers the chance of having important dissenting opinions presented and heard during crucial deliberations. I can't think of any politician in my lifetime whose military background made him a better leader, more insightful, or better suited to make national security decisions, compared to someone without that background.
Arguably our two greatest wartime presidents--Lincoln and Roosevelt--had no significant military experience. I have already stated my opinion that Obama is as good a commander-in-chief as I have seen in my lifetime. Contrast that with Reagan, who was a boob, GW Bush who was a bigger boob, McCain who was and is fairly unstable. Sorry, I just don't see any real connection.
You can only have one commander-in-chief. Anyone qualified for that job should be more that capable of listening to his military advisers and letting them fill him/her in on the details needed to adequately carry out a mission. That's their job.0 -
I'm a veteran. I don't think that makes me more qualified to be Commander in Chief of the United States Armed forces than President Barack Obama. He has the 3 biggest qualifications of all.
1 - he won the presidential election
2 - he has to run for reelection
3 - he can be impeached.0 -
I can see both sides of the argument. But in Lincoln's case, even though he wasn't a soldier, he visited the front lines and was actually shot at. Not that it made him any better of a President, but the misery, the pain, and the suffering was evident, all encompassing, and constant. This nation isn't at war at anymore, it's at the mall. Are military is at war, the only glimpse of suffering coming through the boob tube and through it's family members, a small minority of the general population.
So why I agree that an intelligent, compasionate, well intentioned president who has never been in the military can be an excellent commander in chief, I do think that common sense and empathy can never truly give a civilian the insight of what it is like to be in combat. I don't think, as Casper says, those experiences qualify you anymore than a person who never had them on a strategic level, but maybe those experiences would make the decisions a president or any politician make more real, more thoughtful. I know that for many vets, combat made them urn more ferverently for diplomacy than before.0
