No free speech for Marines?
We read:
"A Camp Pendleton Marine has removed his Facebook page after his comments fueled a free-speech debate about whether troops are allowed to criticize President Barack Obama's policies while serving in the military.
Sgt. Gary Stein said he was asked by his superiors to review the Pentagon's directive on political activities after he criticized Obama's health care reform efforts and then was asked this week to talk about his views on the MSNBC cable TV channel.
Stein said his supervisor told him of his right to an attorney about the matter. He said he decided to close his Facebook page and review his military code obligations. He also contacted private attorneys who told him he had done nothing wrong.
"There's this illusion that when we sign our contract and voluntarily commit, that we lose our right to speak out," Stein told the San Diego Union-Tribune in a story published Wednesday.
The local American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement Wednesday that it has sent a letter to Camp Pendleton's commanding officer urging the Marine Corps to protect Stein's right to freedom of speech...
Stein, 24, a meteorologist for the base's 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said it was ire over Obama's health care reform efforts that pushed him to launch the Facebook page, "Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots," three weeks ago.
Source
At the Nuremberg war tribunal after WWII, it was held that the usual defence given by Nazi military personnel, Befehl ist Befehl (orders are orders), was not a sufficient justification for bad behaviour. Thus a right for military personnel to speak out against government policy would seem to be implied. The Obama administration would be in very bad company if it tried to rescind that
9 comments:
The good Sgt. had better think twice, no, make that three times, before he talkes to msnbc, the "official" Obummer network. And yes, that includes their progressive RINO, Joe Scarborough.
Does anyone know how much freedom does the military allow people to engage in political activism? Frankly, I'm completely clueless. I was reading a book about joning the military and found out there where plenty of restrictions during basic training (no tobacco, no obscene materials, no CD players, etc) but people tell me things change a lot after basic.
Either way, unless I'm wrong about the law, I support Gary Stein, he may have to follow Obama's orders but he doesn't have to agree with them, and if Obama ever tells him to do a nuclear strike on Texas, I'm sure he can disobey that order as well.
Hi Bobby,
What's wrong with ordering a nuclear strike on Texas? Honestly, if I were ordered to do so, I think the best policy would be to comply...with a smile.
In general "you" can have an opinion, but the "military" can't. Public statements must be out of uniform as Mr/Mrs.
Nothing done must bring discredit on the service.
You are required to follow orders. You don't have to like them. If you feel an order is unlawful (bombing TX), you can refuse to obey. You will be held accountable, and if it turns out it was a lawful order, you will either spend a lot of time breaking rocks or a little time getting to deaths door.
Political speech must be done as an American citizen, not as a member of the military. Also, officers have a little less breathing room in this regard than do enlisted personnel. It is fair when you consider what the military is asked to do for this country. I was in for 20 years and never had a problem voicing my opinion on most any topic.
When he set up an Armed Forces site he went to far. He could have set up all the personal sites he wanted to without retaliation. I appeared on TV once disagreeing with current policy. Even told them I was in the Navy. Just made sure they knew the opinions expressed were mine alone and not the Navy's.
I think you guys are right. I read somewhere that a military person can't go to a political protest if he's wearing his military uniform. So I suppose that calling his website Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots is the same thing.
This is ridiculous.
As a Marine he is sworn to uphold the consitution and to fight to protect it - AND YET HE IS DENIED THE PROTECTIONS HE MUST DEFEND!
I did not see that he indicated that he was speaking on behalf of anyone but himself.
What's wrong with ordering a nuclear strike on Texas? Honestly, if I were ordered to do so, I think the best policy would be to comply...with a smile.
Doing so would be treason, the penalty for which is death. And "just following" a clearly illegal order is no defense.
Post a Comment