Free speech groups back teabagger Marine who wrote he "wouldn’t follow unlawful orders from Obama"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Free speech groups line up to back Tea Party Marine
By Jeff Black, msnbc.com



Marine Sgt. Gary Stein, who started a Facebook page critical of President Obama, in an undated photo.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/04/11021399-free-speech-groups-line-up-to-back-tea-party-marine?lite

An unusual band of free speech groups are trying to stop the Marine Corps from kicking a sergeant out of the service for posting statements critical of President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials on Facebook.

Sgt. Gary Stein, who has been a Marine for nine years, started a Facebook page called "Armed Forces Tea Party" in which he says he wouldn’t follow unlawful orders from Obama, and criticized Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for comments made about Syria. Stein has said he created the page as a way to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights.

The lawyers backing Stein filed a lawsuit to halt a discharge hearing scheduled for Thursday at Camp Pendleton in California in order to give them more time to prepare for his defense. They argued their case before federal judge Marilyn Huff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Wednesday afternoon. Their attempt to get a restraining order to postpone the military hearing, however, was denied, David Loy, legal director for the San Diego branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, told msnbc.com.

Thus, the military hearing will determine if Stein should be discharged from the Marines when his enlistment ends in July. Stein has expressed his wish to stay in the service. The Marines said Stein violated a Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities and should be discharged.

[edgineered]

1. Not being able to understand his sworn oath,

both in his initial enlistment and subsequent enlistments makes him unfit for duty. Being in defiance of his oath to follow orders makes him a traitor.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Odd; I don't remember anything about following "unlawful" orders in the Oath I took.

After all, doesn't the story say "unlawful" orders? I've seen the belief that NO serviceman/woman should follow "unlawful" orders posted here more times than I can count.

Did the Oath you took when you enlisted mention anything about following "unlawful" orders?

[meow2u3]

16. Sergeant Slaughter thinks ANY order from Obama is unlawful

The reason: President Obama is the wrong color.

Only white, male totalitarian nutcases who'd rather cram women and minorities in death camps than give them a hand up are fit to be President of the United States.

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. And you know this how?

[sakabatou]

23. Sarcasm tag

[Yo_Mama]

29. He can think whatever he wants

But under UCMJ, if he disobeys any lawful order (which sure ain't gonna come directly from the prez) he's in deep, deep trouble.

But, should he actually follow a clearly unlawful order (which in the US means that if the President gives the order and the order obviously violates the law, the order ain't lawful) then he goes down too.

Legally his statement is fine under US law. The context probably makes it a violation of the UCMJ, but US law is that it is a crime for any US member of the armed forces to follow an illegal order, even if that order comes from the president himself.

[edgineered]

24. To obey all orders from superiors, in a nutshell. Some egoists however,

are easily confused by the concept of chain of command decisions, think of it like having a job where the boss thinks he's in charge. Captain Blythe tells Lt Fletcher, "Thinking seems to confuse you"

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. UCMJ Article 90

ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;

What other insults do you have for me?

[Yo_Mama]

28. UCMJ and the oath only involve lawful orders.

Like if you are standing there guarding a secured prisoner, and a superior comes along and tells you to shoot him, if you do, you can be charged for murder.

A member of the US military has the duty to obey any lawful order of which he/she is aware. Also there is a presumption that any order is lawful. However US law has never allowed service members to obey an unlawful order without penalty under law.
http://jdcworks.com/unlawful.pdf

So I don't know what you are talking about. This is the standard oath:

I 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.

A Navy captain was sued for following an illegal order of President Adams, and the SC upheld the lower court's determination that he was personally liable. 1804:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=6&invol=170

US courts have always held that it is a crime to follow a clearly unlawful order. United States v. Keenan, Vietnam war. Basically the situation I began with.

[jeff47]

32. He added "unlawful" after he was caught.

His original statement:

I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me.

[Yo_Mama]

36. Well, I don't personally see how he's still in the military

Because the precedent the ACLU is citing in the Wilcox case just doesn't cover a venue like this (armed forces intranet for some of the statements), the direct criticism of those in the line of command and apparently a statement asserting that he wouldn't obey a LAWFUL order.

It looks like the ACLU was defending him over the Facebook charges, and was then sandbagged at the hearing when this other stuff came up. Or so I'm guessing, because I don't see the legal justification.

Newspapers are famous for misquoting people, but when the military pops up with his posted statement that his commander-in-chief is the enemy, this falls under the UCMJ and not his private rights of free speech. It's very directly related to his military duties and it's on a military venue and it can't possibly slide under First Amendment rights.

The guy seems sort of nuts, doesn't he? How could he have believed he could get away with that?

I posted the other because I don't want anyone to think that US military members are allowed to follow unlawful orders with impunity. They are not. That has NEVER been US law.

Edit:
PS: I'm guessing that the ACLU didn't know about the other postings. It's just a guess, but I think a good one. ACLU only seems to know about the Facebook charges. I'm sure they stood there in court at the hearing with a really weird feeling.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. They shoulda' heard what I had to say about LBJ and his war when I was in.

Actually, they did hear what I had to say and I got 30 days mess duty for my youthful indiscretions.

[haele]

3. Must not have gone to bootcamp. Or slept through the class on the UCMJ.

If he's active duty, it doesn't matter what rights civilians have, he pretty much gave them up when he signed on the dotted line and raised his hand.
Yes, he has rights of redress. He also has limits on his free speech - especially since once he enlisted or accepted a commission, the Marine Corps technically owns him for the duration of the service, and if they determine that he's saying something out of line or reflects badly on the Corps, there's a couple articles in the UCMJ that addresses that.

And if he refuses what he thinks is not a "lawful order", he's subject to a hearing as to why he refused the order. And if it's determined that the order is lawful, tough shit.

My Marine Corps Lt. Col. boss - who's also a California Appelate Lawyer (por bono) on the side - thinks this guy is a tea-bagging weenie and has no case. Said the guy should have enlisted in the Air Farce if he thought he should be treated like a civilian.

Haele

[provis99]

4. he won't follow orders, but wants to stay in the Marines?

good luck with that, Teabagger boy.

[TheMastersNemesis]

6. I Was A Draftee But This Soldier Volunteered

I was a draftee so I did not have any choice. I felt the same way about Bush. He was not legitimately elected. Obama was and we did not cheat. Bush was appointed by SCOTUS. However, had I been in our present all volunteer military I would have to leave the service.

This case should be no different. If this Marine feels that way then he is not entitled to wear the uniform. He could not be trusted to follow orders on a mission. He should bet a general discharge.

These G damned RWingers just want it their way. If it was a GOP president he would probably be shot for treason or something. There is always a double standard with these assholes. I certainly cannot live with them the are too crazy and mean.

[geckosfeet]

10. There was draft whe bUsh was pres?

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. Strange how many missed the word "unlawful" before responding to this post...

Or maybe not.

[Drale]

13. No one missed it

but they also saw the word tea bagger. That means that he believes that ever order from Obama is unlawful, because he probably believes that Obama does not have to right to be president in the first place.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Someday I'm hoping to read minds as well as most DUers can.

Someday.

[NoGOPZone]

20. Easy mistake to make considering Stein

didn't initially include the qualifier but then amended his statement.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/6025/marine-tea-party-facebook-page-goes-against-military-principles&op=

[Confusious]

21. I don't think they did

you seem to think that each and every trooper gets to decide what is and isn't "lawful." They don't.

If it's not in the Geneva conventions, or the Marine book, then it's lawful.

The military isn't a democracy. You take orders, you follow those orders. you don't get to vote.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. UCMJ Article 90 EXPLICITLY states "willfully disobeys a LAWFUL command".

I wonder why the UCMJ makes that distinction?

ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;

[jeff47]

33. That's because he only added "unlawful" when he was caught.

His original statement:

I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me.

[geckosfeet]

8. Heh heh heh, when you sign on the dotted line and take the oath

you give up your right to free speech for the duration. You also swear an oath to serve the country, whether you think the president and his staff are right, or not.

What a twit.

[demosincebirth]

15. that's the way I understood it.

[Ineeda]

9. Isn't saying and doing two different things?

I don't condone or agree with him, but until he actually disobeys an order....? I hope he's discharged, though, when his time is up.

[demosincebirth]

11. How did he become a Sgt?

[surrealAmerican]

12. Does that mean he would follow "unlawful" orders ...

... if they came from someone else?

[MrScorpio]

14. He's already entitled to not follow unlawful orders

As is every person wearing a uniform. Let's say that he's ordered to violate the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners, he can refuse. It might not be smooth going for him with his immediate superiors, but if he's in the right, he should find himself absolved of insubordination if charges are filed against him.

However, I don't think that it's that simple with him… Based on his apparent disrespect of the Commander in Chief, I have a feeling that he wants to cherry pick what orders he wants to follow and what orders he doesn't want to follow, without regard to their actual categorization of lawfulness.

Plus there are clear DoD rules that he's obligated to adhere to while he's in uniform. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

If he's found to be in violation of these rules, his ass is grass, as we used to say when I was serving.

[Yo_Mama]

35. Yeah, it is about those rules - not the unlawful order comment

I looked at the ACLU bit:
http://www.aclusandiego.org/surprising-coalition-of-free-speech-advocates-join-to-protect-marine%E2%80%99s-rights/

Sergeant Stein is alleged to have posted on his Facebook page various criticisms of President Obama and questions concerning Obama Administration policies, as well as critiques of Senator John McCain, Congressman Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and others. Since at least April 2010, the Facebook page that he co-hosts with three other individuals has carried a disclaimer that all statements on that page are personal views, not made in any official capacity and not representing the views of the Marine Corps.

More recently, Sergeant Stein spoke against unlawful orders in the abstract. He did not disobey or advocate disobeying any particular order actually issued by any superior officer. Though some of the language he initially used in discussing such hypothetical orders might have been viewed as intemperate, he clarified repeatedly and publicly that he was only discussing the settled principle of military law that servicemembers should not follow unlawful orders.

How political is this? It's clearly not Republican/Democratic. Maybe ACLU is going to argue that this really falls under the "thou mays":

4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:
4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.
...
4.1.1.6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member’s personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate. If the letter identifies the member as on active duty (or if the member is otherwise reasonably identifiable as a member of the Armed Forces), the letter should clearly state that the views expressed are those of the individual only and not those of the Department of Defense (or Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard).
...
4.1.1.8. Display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.

This is a weird one. In the list of the thou shalt nots:

4.1.2.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
4.1.2.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
...
4.1.2.11. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on a private vehicle.
4.1.2.12. Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.

The ACLU is citing the Wilcox (KKK) case:
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2008Term/05-0159.pdf

So I am not sure about the precedent, and we will see. Criticizing those in the military line of command is more directly related to military interests and therefore doesn't really meet the Wilcox test.

[NoGOPZone]

17. A few freeper heads are going to explode

when they learn this guy is being supported by the ACLU. Nothing unusual for them to help conservatives, but that lesson is never learned by the right wing.

on edit: changed a key word, can't tell if they play a direct role.

[mike_c]

22. he should not obey ANY unlawful order....

Period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. The Civil Liberties Union shoud not walk into this one

1.- UCMJ violation, as clear as day...they could prosecute this Marine.

2.- Officers appointed over me, nowhere is democrat or republican, this is good order and discipline.

3- This is a military case, not a civilian case.

Reason I don't know what of the disconnect between the military and civilian worlds.

[jeff47]

31. Terrible source. Try this article instead.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-marines-facebookbre83403m-20120404,0,7761933.story

One of the statements he's in trouble for:

"As an active-duty Marine, I have sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Obama is the economic enemy, the religious enemy, the domestic enemy."

He posted that on an internal DoD site for meteorologists.

[Canuckistanian]

34. Then they shouldn't have a problem with Bradley Manning. n/t

[DearAbby]

37. Good luck with that, Gomer

duh.