Should military members be able to freely express their opinions on politics?

MarineTpartier said:

No order was given not to burn the Quran seeing as how it is a legal and proper way, according to the book itself, to dispose of it. I'm sure Marines you know did what they were told. Like I said though, we aren't automatons.

Click to expand...

I did hear that they may have been burning trash and didn't know that some inexpensive unrecognizable copies of Quran were in the trash then the they should not be in trouble. But, I've been scapegoated in the military.

OhIsee.Then said:

I understood, myself, that there was a standing order and it has been in effect for some time.
Also, if command decided that it was done to upset the people that were being occupied, i.e. anything that would screw up the mission, they would be in trouble.

Click to expand...

I never heard such orders and I just returned from there last July. If this was the Bible, then yes, it would be an order that doesn't need to be given. But the Quran states that burning it is one of the proper ways to dispose of it. I totally understand your logic of "anything that would screw up a mission" though. Of course no order needs to be given to stop service members from, for instance, burning someones crops up. Thats a given. So I'm not trying to use the head in the sand argument. I really don't see anything wrong with what they did. The Qurans were defiled by practicers of its teachings. We simply disposed of them in the proper manner, even if the guys doing it didn't know they were even disposing of a Quran to begin with.

As a member of the military you are free to speak your mind...as a citizen. As soon as you attach your service you are putting yourself at risk. Declaring your intent to disobey the CiC (even if you later amend it to say the UNLAWFUL orders)...in my book that opens you up to a world of hurt.

The military isnt unique in this manner. Private employers may fire people as well for something like this.

MarineTpartier said:

We simply disposed of them in the proper manner, even if the guys doing it didn't know they were even disposing of a Quran to begin with.

Click to expand...

I think that the disposal of a Quran by the instructions in the Quran has to be done in a certain way buy the correct people, i.e. not US Marines.

VanceMack said:

As a member of the military you are free to speak your mind...as a citizen. As soon as you attach your service you are putting yourself at risk. Declaring your intent to disobey the CiC (even if you later amend it to say the UNLAWFUL orders)...in my book that opens you up to a world of hurt.

The military isnt unique in this manner. Private employers may fire people as well for something like this.

Click to expand...

Are you up to date on the UCMJ? I'm not, but I did have to follow it for 4 years and I did come to understand the issue on this thread.

MarineTpartier said:

I never heard such orders and I just returned from there last July. If this was the Bible, then yes, it would be an order that doesn't need to be given. But the Quran states that burning it is one of the proper ways to dispose of it. I totally understand your logic of "anything that would screw up a mission" though. Of course no order needs to be given to stop service members from, for instance, burning someones crops up. Thats a given. So I'm not trying to use the head in the sand argument. I really don't see anything wrong with what they did. The Qurans were defiled by practicers of its teachings. We simply disposed of them in the proper manner, even if the guys doing it didn't know they were even disposing of a Quran to begin with.

Click to expand...

You do realize that service members just recently burned Bibles too, right? In fact, they were ordered to do so by the chain of command.

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan - CNN.com

There is no order, assumed or official, to not burn Bibles.

I have been in for almost 14 years. Military members are and should be allowed to express their views, political and otherwise, to a point. We are military members. We cannot wear our uniform or represent ourselves as speaking for the military. We cannot make comments that lead our chain of command to believe that we might disobey lawful orders because of our politics.

You could say the guy misspoke, in the least. We have training now on what can be put on social networking sites and what can't. This is certainly one of those things that pops up on the "warning: think before you post this" radar.

From what I understand, the guy isn't getting harshly punished for this. I don't even think he is getting NJP. It is likely counseling and a note in his record (unless there is some other issue we don't really know about). I have seen people punished for much less, including being a minute late to muster and calling a senior "jackass" or "jerk".

roguenuke said:

You do realize that service members just recently burned Bibles too, right? In fact, they were ordered to do so by the chain of command.

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan - CNN.com

There is no order, assumed or official, to not burn Bibles.

Click to expand...

I was not aware of that. Of course, I'm not surprised there's not uproar either. Whatever, this country gets more jacked up everyday.

OhIsee.Then said:

Are you up to date on the UCMJ? I'm not, but I did have to follow it for 4 years and I did come to understand the issue on this thread.

Click to expand...

I am as up to date as I need to be. I still work with the military and have two sons in the military. Facebook and Youtube has changed the world...I dont know exactly how the military views stating things today. I know for 20 years you could vote, engage in politics, and enjoy every right anyone else did as long as you didnt wear your uniform and present yourself as a member of the military...making it an issue. Its just very thin ice people skate when they do things like were mentioned in the OP.

MarineTpartier said:

I never heard such orders and I just returned from there last July. If this was the Bible, then yes, it would be an order that doesn't need to be given. But the Quran states that burning it is one of the proper ways to dispose of it. I totally understand your logic of "anything that would screw up a mission" though. Of course no order needs to be given to stop service members from, for instance, burning someones crops up. Thats a given. So I'm not trying to use the head in the sand argument. I really don't see anything wrong with what they did. The Qurans were defiled by practicers of its teachings. We simply disposed of them in the proper manner, even if the guys doing it didn't know they were even disposing of a Quran to begin with.

Click to expand...

burning the quran is like burning the american flag,there is a way to burn it honoring it as a disabled piece,and there are ways to burn it showing hate.

if someone said the proper way to destroy a flag was burning woud you throw it in a metal can and light it?the answer should be no,even though our flag is meant to be burned upon being unserviceable,it was meant to be burned in a flag burning ceremony to recognize that particuliar flag had served its time,salutes are rendered etc.im pretty sure the muslims feel the same way about their holy document,where burning is required but in a way that honors the wuran and not treats it like a piece of trash.

beerftw said:

burning the quran is like burning the american flag,there is a way to burn it honoring it as a disabled piece,and there are ways to burn it showing hate.

if someone said the proper way to destroy a flag was burning woud you throw it in a metal can and light it?the answer should be no,even though our flag is meant to be burned upon being unserviceable,it was meant to be burned in a flag burning ceremony to recognize that particuliar flag had served its time,salutes are rendered etc.im pretty sure the muslims feel the same way about their holy document,where burning is required but in a way that honors the wuran and not treats it like a piece of trash.

Click to expand...

1) They didn't know it was in the trash 2) They didn't throw it in the trash 3) The very people who "practice" the religion are the reason is was thrown away to begin with 4) There is a proper way for the American flag to be burned. However, when its burned in the streets of Oakland, I don't see the POTUS decrying it nor apologizing to the American people for it.
I'm good with the POTUS explaining to the Afghani's that we didn't know it was there, it wasn't on purpose, it won't happen again. But apologizing was over the top, IMO. Hillary Clinton condemning them is ridiculous as well. The apologies should have been left to the theater commander and emissary to Afghanistan. They know the climate of the place, they know who to talk to, and most importantly they can go there in person to talk to them.

I believe we should be able to share our opinions with certain common sense limitations. Those being

1) we wouldn't want people to confuse Joe the infantry private's "let's kill em all" line of thinking with official military policy.
2) does not violate operational security
3) no subversion

#3 is the kicker for some people.
We can't have a functioning military if troops want to bail or refuse to follow orders because they disagree with the commander in chief ( excluding unlawful orders ).

MarineTpartier said:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.

While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.

The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.

While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad..............
The link provides the rest of the story.
Also, the second link describes our rights as service members regarding free speech.
Marine's Facebook page tests military rules - Yahoo! News
Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ - Military Law, Military Law Advice, Ask a Lawyer - Army Times

Click to expand...

1) If you are actively serving then you are duty bound to give honest opinions to those in your chain of command. However, if your commanding officers gives you orders that differ from your opinion then you are obligated to fulfill that order unless it is an illegal order.

2) If you are actively serving and you are asked your honest opinion by someone outside the military then you should practice discretion in how you express your position.

3) If you are actively serving and you are asked your political opinion you should keep it to yourself out of respect to the civilian authority over the military.

4) If you've been discharged from service then you are free to express your opinion, political or otherwise, as you are no longer bound by the obligations of military service.

samsmart said:

1) If you are actively serving then you are duty bound to give honest opinions to those in your chain of command. However, if your commanding officers gives you orders that differ from your opinion then you are obligated to fulfill that order unless it is an illegal order.

Click to expand...

Concur. Well put

samsmart said:

2) If you are actively serving and you are asked your honest opinion by someone outside the military then you should practice discretion in how you express your position.

Click to expand...

Disagree. As long as I am not disrespectful to anyone, I see nothing wrong with telling someone what I think. Even if it doesn't toe the line with the higher ups. For instance, I would love to go into the wasteful spending that occurs in our military and the push back I get when I try to stop it.

samsmart said:

3) If you are actively serving and you are asked your political opinion you should keep it to yourself out of respect to the civilian authority over the military.

Click to expand...

Again, disagree. See above reason. In addition, if I can't give my opinion then I shouldn't be able to vote. If someone tries to take my right to vote, you're going to see one pissed of Marine.

samsmart said:

4) If you've been discharged from service then you are free to express your opinion, political or otherwise, as you are no longer bound by the obligations of military service.

Click to expand...

Concur again.

samsmart said:

1) If you are actively serving then you are duty bound to give honest opinions to those in your chain of command. However, if your commanding officers gives you orders that differ from your opinion then you are obligated to fulfill that order unless it is an illegal order.

2) If you are actively serving and you are asked your honest opinion by someone outside the military then you should practice discretion in how you express your position.

3) If you are actively serving and you are asked your political opinion you should keep it to yourself out of respect to the civilian authority over the military.

4) If you've been discharged from service then you are free to express your opinion, political or otherwise, as you are no longer bound by the obligations of military service.

Click to expand...

I dont buy off on 2 or 3. You still have your right to an opinion. It just depends on the circumstance and audience. I had no problem discussing things with peers (same rank) or seniors...but never down the stream. People in my squadrons could come talk to me, but if they were bitching about the CiC or mission, the response would be invariably the same..."I understand your frustration...thats the job...every four years you can decide if you dont like it are not willing to put up with it. In the meantime...saddle up and lets go to work."

MarineTpartier said:

Well, if you could give **** how many Marines hate the POTUS, keep your mouth shut about the Marine Corps. If you don't give a ****, it shouldn't matter right? Your comment was "The Marine in question, by voicing his disdain for Obama has just soured my opinion of the USMC.". That doesn't sound like someone would could give a ****. That sounds like someone who shot off at the mouth, was called out on his illogical statement, and is now shooting off at the mouth again.
In addition, you obviously didn't read anything very carefully because A) I never said a Marine burned the Quran. Notice service member is used repeatedly in my post. B) This is a direct quote from the story that is linked on the very first post on this thread.
Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.
In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

You sure you read the OP, my post's, or the links well? I think not.

Click to expand...

The Marine in the OP isn't the only one making the Corps look bad. He's got plenty of help from you. You want to censor my speech? Good luck with that one Bro. As long as I'm alive, I'll say whatever I want to say in spite of your tirade.

MarineTpartier said:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.

While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.

The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.

While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad..............
The link provides the rest of the story.
Also, the second link describes our rights as service members regarding free speech.
Marine's Facebook page tests military rules - Yahoo! News
Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ - Military Law, Military Law Advice, Ask a Lawyer - Army Times

Click to expand...

If he is encouraging troops to not obey the comander in cheif then he should be thrown on the military.There is nothing politcal about that.

Mickey Shane said:

The Marine in the OP isn't the only one making the Corps look bad. He's got plenty of help from you. You want to censor my speech? Good luck with that one Bro. As long as I'm alive, I'll say whatever I want to say in spite of your tirade.

Click to expand...

LOL! You're a regular freedom figher huh?. I mean seriously, how do you do it? You make two points that counter each other then try to turn it on me and say I am "censoring" you. Like I can censor Debate Politics or something. You stay classy Mickey Shane.

jamesrage said:

If he is encouraging troops to not obey the comander in cheif then he should be thrown on the military.There is nothing politcal about that.

Click to expand...

You would follow that order? To take fellow servicemen into custody for burning a Quran?

VanceMack said:

I dont buy off on 2 or 3. You still have your right to an opinion. It just depends on the circumstance and audience. I had no problem discussing things with peers (same rank) or seniors...but never down the stream. People in my squadrons could come talk to me, but if they were bitching about the CiC or mission, the response would be invariably the same..."I understand your frustration...thats the job...every four years you can decide if you dont like it are not willing to put up with it. In the meantime...saddle up and lets go to work."

Click to expand...

I should have specified that in regards to 2 and 3 I meant expressing that opinion publicly, such as through Facebook or via a news interview or the like. I think that is different than offering an opinion in private.

MarineTpartier said:

You would follow that order? To take fellow servicemen into custody for burning a Quran?

Click to expand...

The issue is not whether or not you would take someone into custody. The issue is a marine who was trying to encourage troops to disobey their commander in chief. I seriously doubt the Koran burnings had anything to do with that marine posting a face book page implying that troops should no obey their commander in chief. Most likely it is some birther-tard nonsense why he originally posted he wouldn't obey the president.

Depends on where you exercise that freedom of speech.

U.S. General Fired For Verbal Attack On Afghan Leader | Fox News

MarineTpartier said:

LOL! You're a regular freedom figher huh?. I mean seriously, how do you do it? You make two points that counter each other then try to turn it on me and say I am "censoring" you. Like I can censor Debate Politics or something. You stay classy Mickey Shane.
View attachment 67123823

Click to expand...

If you were schizophrenic you'd understand. It's not the 'Marine' part that I don't like. It's the rest of your name. Tpartiers have no reasoning skills. It's all about: don't tread on ME. What about other people?

The dude in the OP was quick to change his stance when confronted with reprimand. He went directly from not obeying orders from the CiC to not obeying unlawful orders. That Cat's a Birther. He just won't admit it. Birthers take up valuable space and resources that could be used for intelligent people.

Anyway, it's a simple idea that those who wear the uniforms of the US military need to change clothes before extolling their political beliefs. His problem was that he needed to be a soldier in order to say that he wasn't going to follow orders. That statement means that he's not a good soldier.
Social website media will continue to be the downfall of many a person that should have looked before they leaped. Ergo the pissing on the dead video.

Just being classy means don't fall into that trap. How many super drunk posts online have caused good people to not get the job? Now I hear that if you're like me and your real name doesn't Google, you won't get the job either. George Orwell was a quarter century premature. It's here.

the military and it's members should , in it's duties and missions, be as apolitical as humanly possible....we do not want the military mixed up in politics.

military members are never "off duty".. that means they get regulated to an extend that civilians do not.

out of uniform, military members are generally free to say what they like and do what they like... but there are some lines that they cannot cross ( because of the requirement to be an apolitical entity)

Mickey Shane said:

If you were schizophrenic you'd understand. It's not the 'Marine' part that I don't like. It's the rest of your name. Tpartiers have no reasoning skills. It's all about: don't tread on ME. What about other people?

Click to expand...

You obviously have no understanding of what the Tea Party is. The true Tea Party. Most of these spin offs are nothing more than a bunch of coat tail riders. The Tea Party stands for fiscal conservatism and INDIVIDUAL liberties. Obviously, "don't tread on ME" would fit that right? On the other hand, the country is turning into a class and group mindset. Everyone has to be grouped nice and neat into a category for the country to run right apparently. You have to be lower, middle, upper class, a certain minority, a certain voting block, a certain denomination, etc, etc. People are losing sight of the fact that this country wasn't built on that crap. It was built on rugged individuals that went as far as they could go on their own, then looked to their friends, family, and church to help. The friends, family, and church in turn, answered the call. A perfect example is here in Tennessee. Tornadoes came through and wiped out 77 homes. FEMA won't declare it a disaster area. Guess who's helping? The local community, the local churches. No one's waiting around for the gov't to do something for them. Nowadays, its not unusual for someone who can't make it on their own to immediately want a hand out or someone to do it for them. The Sandra Fluke incident is a perfect example. That's what the Tea Party stands for and I think most Americans can identify with that. Much like a lot of Americans can identify with what the original Occupiers stood for before their movement got hijacked by idealouges.

Mickey Shane said:

The dude in the OP was quick to change his stance when confronted with reprimand. He went directly from not obeying orders from the CiC to not obeying unlawful orders. That Cat's a Birther. He just won't admit it. Birthers take up valuable space and resources that could be used for intelligent people.

Click to expand...

If you read his comments in context, he was speaking of unlawful orders. So his statement that he's talking about unlawful orders wasn't a step back, but a clarification. Also, you prove my point that I made above. You feel the need to group him in with "birthers" simply because you think it fits. Not for anything he's said or done. There's a vast difference in disagreeing with Obama's policies and saying he wasn't born in the US. Your classification of him is merely convenient for you because you don't understand what he is saying.

Mickey Shane said:

Anyway, it's a simple idea that those who wear the uniforms of the US military need to change clothes before extolling their political beliefs. His problem was that he needed to be a soldier in order to say that he wasn't going to follow orders. That statement means that he's not a good soldier. Social website media will continue to be the downfall of many a person that should have looked before they leaped. Ergo the pissing on the dead video.

Click to expand...

I agree that we should not be able to speak publicly about politics while in uniform. I whole heartedly agree with you. However, his overall point about not following an unlawful order is a valid one. The defense "I was merely following orders" never works when something illegal has been done. Sure, the one giving the order is punished in a more severe manner but the individual who carried out the unlawful order is punished as well. A good example is the My Lai Massacre. Read up on it and you'll see. A person who refuses a unlawful order, in my opinion, is the epitomy of what makes our military better than any other. We can think as individuals (there's that word again) instead of having the zombie like mindset of a military like, for instance, Nazi Germany.
My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mickey Shane said:

Just being classy means don't fall into that trap. How many super drunk posts online have caused good people to not get the job? Now I hear that if you're like me and your real name doesn't Google, you won't get the job either. George Orwell was a quarter century premature. It's here.

Click to expand...

Whatever you say.........