Marine says he faces discharge over Obama comments

  • Thread starter Thread starter News Feed
  • Start date Start date
N

News Feed

Guest
A politically active Marine who has questioned President Barack Obama's authority said Thursday that he is facing administrative discharge proceedings over his comments.

RyamKX6TIKE


Continue reading...
 
so what... :confused: people cant lawfully protest in the streets of america either... hes been to basic... buck up pussy...
 
Sorry buddy. I'd love to scream and cry censorship and point fingers at the bad man, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. One of the basic rules of being in the military. You cannot publicly question/challenge the Commander in Chief. It's been that way since the Civil War...

I even see memos occasionally reminding the military guys of the rules of military and ethical conduct. They even teach classes on it in boot camp, and rule #1 is that "you are a member of the United States Armed Forces and as such are held to a higher standard. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief and your ultimate commander. You are welcome to your personal opinion, but you may not publicly damage the reputation or Esprit de Corps of the United States Military by openly challenging the chain of command under penalty of the UCMJ".

I know you've never been in or around the military. I'm just sayin. Not much different if you openly slam your boss in real life...

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
Sorry buddy. I'd love to scream and cry censorship and point fingers at the bad man, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. One of the basic rules of being in the military. You cannot publicly question/challenge the Commander in Chief. It's been that way since the Civil War...

I even see memos occasionally reminding the military guys of the rules of military and ethical conduct. They even teach classes on it in boot camp, and rule #1 is that "you are a member of the United States Armed Forces and as such are held to a higher standard. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief and your ultimate commander. You are welcome to your personal opinion, but you may not publicly damage the reputation or Esprit de Corps of the United States Military by openly challenging the chain of command under penalty of the UCMJ".

I know you've never been in or around the military. I'm just sayin. Not much different if you openly slam your boss in real life...

Wayne
Click to expand...

Hmm, I guess you didn't know that the oath of enlistment is to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

"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. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Sounds to me like he is defending the Constitution of the United States from a domestic enemy.

I seem to remember you defending military personnel who were upset with Bush and spoke out. Hmm...
 
redrumloa said:
Hmm, I guess you didn't know that the oath of enlistment is to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

"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. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Sounds to me like he is defending the Constitution of the United States from a domestic enemy.

I seem to remember you defending military personnel who were upset with Bush and spoke out. Hmm...
Click to expand...


until u understand chain of command and who decides who is an "enemy" of the state... why do you think they put a constitutional law guy in charge while they did this shit...? obama, obama, obama, oh both of them...
 
Jim,

The Oath of Enlistment has absolutely zero to do with it, but I digress. Like I said, you are no personal experience with the military, so it simply shows a little bit in your latest blatantly-biased attempt to trash your own personal anti-christ (Obama).

I'm not saying I object to his position. I probably share it to a certain extent but like I said, people should -- and do -- have the right to believe whatever they want. It's when those thoughts are turned into public actions which reflect badly on the Corps (ie -- his job) that he has pretty much shit the bed.

All of this is covered in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and as such, publicly trashing his superior officer (ie - his boss) makes him subject to several different punishments, the very best of which is a dishonorable discharge.

Article 88. Contempt toward officials.
Article 89. Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer.
Article 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 116. Riot or breach of peace.
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures.
Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

(None of which has anything to do with Obama)

Here's the thing Jim. If the Marine or any other soldier truly believes that his ultimate boss is an "enemy" then he has absolutely no business being in the United States military in any way. Military personnel are expected to represent the U.S. military in the best light at all times. It is a basic tenet of the job. You know, the whole "honor" thing.
 
For the record, I currently work for the USMC, so while I respect the kid's right to his opinion, I clearly see how his public defamation of the Chain of Command is completely unacceptable. At minimum, he's out of the Corps, but probably not before serving out his contract on KP duty as an E-1 Private.
 
Wayne said:
For the record, I currently work for the USMC, so while I respect the kid's right to his opinion, I clearly see how his public defamation of the Chain of Command is completely unacceptable. At minimum, he's out of the Corps, but probably not before serving out his contract on KP duty as an E-1 Private.
Click to expand...

I completely understand your point. The problem is, what is coming. How will you feel when the Army breaks down your door and confiscates all of your guns? Hey, they were just following orders. How will you feel when after they finish counting your guns decide you are a subversive and disappear you to Guantanamo Bay. Once again, just following orders.
 
redrumloa said:
I completely understand your point. The problem is, what is coming. How will you feel when the Army breaks down your door and confiscates all of your guns? Hey, they were just following orders. How will you feel when after they finish counting your guns decide you are a subversive and disappear you to Guantanamo Bay. Once again, just following orders.
Click to expand...
Jim,

Apparently you don't understand at all. This is not about personal freedoms. NOT AT ALL.

A ****MARINE**** ****KNOWINGLY**** violated the rules as established (and he agreed to as a service member) of the UCMJ. The same UCMJ that has been in place for over a hundred years. When you enlist in the military, you are bound by obligation, and law to obey those rules (some of which are more stringent and finite than civilian laws). You agree to it every day you wear the uniform and draw a paycheck.

Period.

This isn't even a news story. Violations of the UCMJ result in Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines being discharged from the military every single day. I could (though I will never) personally speak to two instances -- though lesser in nature than denying the authority of the CiC..

This is just some cocky dumbass kid who knowingly broke the rules got called on his shit, then cried to the starving "newsertainment" media about how he's being punished for exercising his first amendment rights. (he isn't)...

What you're refusing to "completely understand" is that as a Marine, a certain degree of those rights that he ****WILLINGLY**** abrogated the day he enlisted as a member of the United States Marine Corps. He might be too young or immature to understand that, or more likely it seems he's seeking his 15-minutes of fame, but he's no hero.

Quite the contrary.

By openly creating, then leading a political party representing the Marine Corps (which he did) in opposition to the Commander in Chief of the same country he swore an allegiance to defend, he is, in fact, guilty of -- worst case scenario -- treason or sedition. Best case scenario, violation of several Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in which case he'll spend the next decade or so working at McDonald's with a dishonorable discharge.

Surely you get the very basic difference here... If not, ask yourself what would happen if you -- even as a civilian -- held a press conference, stepped up to the podium, announced that the owner of your company -- whom in this example, you've never met -- was incompetent, then demanded he be fired and replaced?

That is -- in the absolute nutshell -- exactly what this Marine Corps Sergeant did. No difference. Now do you really get it?

Wayne
 
As regards "not a news story", what I get out of it is that the young Sergeant may not have understood his duties and obligations, thought what he was doing was "ok", then when he got called on it by his superiors, he ran straight to the aforementioned desperate media to try and sway public opinion to lessen the chances of punishment more severe than just getting kicked out.

Various different writeups on the story (I'm not your personal Google bitch) put it very clearly that the Sergeant was warned repeatedly of both his actions and the consequences before it ever went to the board.

I might respect his personal opinion and his willingness to sacrifice for it, but I have no sympathy for him knowingly taking the route he chose. Put clearly, "Actions have Consequences"...
 
Wayne said:
That is -- in the absolute nutshell -- exactly what this Marine Corps Sergeant did. No difference. Now do you really get it?

Wayne
Click to expand...

I got your point the first time and this time. You completely missed my point.
 
Apparently I did, and still do. What does a Marine flushing his future have to do with either Obama OR "them" "coming to get my guns"???

Neither I, nor you, are subject to the UCMJ.
 
Wayne said:
Apparently I did, and still do. What does a Marine flushing his future have to do with either Obama OR "them" "coming to get my guns"???

Neither I, nor you, are subject to the UCMJ.
Click to expand...

But you and I will both be living under Marshall Law with our military blindly taking orders from the commander in chief, even if those orders are in direct violation to the Constitution and basic human rights.
 
But you and I will both be living under Marshall Law with our military blindly taking orders from the commander in chief, even if those orders are in direct violation to the Constitution and basic human rights.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm. Jim? That's a bit of a stretch, even for you. Maybe the tin hat's wearing thin and the secret satellite is starting to affect you? :)

A national Martial Law would never, ever work in this country. First, members of the US Military -- not withstanding obvious historical mistakes -- would never fire on unarmed civilians (en masse) and any order given to do so would be in violation of several laws, not the least of which is the UCMJ and the Constitution.

The latter of which guarantees our rights as citizens to overturn our government.

Am I wrong? (anyone else?)
 
I'm sure that's all true, but my point still stands. Soldiers are still humans and know an illegal order when they hear it.

Completely off the topic of the Marine in question though.

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
I'm sure that's all true, but my point still stands. Soldiers are still humans and know an illegal order when they hear it.

Completely off the topic of the Marine in question though.

Wayne
Click to expand...

He later clarified to say he meant illegal orders, which he has explained as orders such as sending the military to Syria without congressional approval.

This guy will likely have the book thrown at him. The bigger point is what happens when National Marshall Law is declared. The National Guard had no problem going door to door after Hurricane Katrina confiscating guns illegally, roughing up little old ladies in their homes while doing it. What makes you think it will be any different on a national level?
 
the_leander said:
You've been spending long periods at WorldNutDaily again, haven't you?

It shows.
Click to expand...




Reality is real, even if people don't like to hear it. BTW, no, I do not spend a lot of time on WND.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top