• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 57.1%

  • No

    Votes: 10 35.7%

  • More than currently allowed, but not freely

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Less than currently allowed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    28
I know very little of military protocol. I always thought... since there are vocal military members here at DP who express themselves quite freely... that members of the military had a right to freely discuss their political views on issues and candidates.

This is a bit different, in my view. Publicly denouncing his superiors, or in this case his Commander In Chief, would seem to be teetering at the line of insubordination. At the very least, it was incredibly arrogant and stupid. At worst, he might be looking at disciplinary actions and even discharge.

I didn't vote, because there wasn't an "other" option in the poll, and none of the options provided matched my view.
 
wish it was an open poll - be interesting to see how our active duty and veteran community vote.

I voted no. You are free to speak as a private citizen, not as a representative of the Armed Forces, and you are not free therefore to tie your service to your opinions. You do not represent the views of the Armed Forces unless it is your specific billet to do so, and you are not authorized in this matter to jump your chain of command.
 
megaprogman said:
Newbie (to this particular issue) question here.

What is the reasoning to not allow military folks to fully engage in free speech in the first place?
Click to expand...

See: South America, Coups, History of.

The Military is very explicitly apolitical and for good damn reason. When a servicemember leverages their position and their service in order to attempt to lend weight to a political position, not only are they effectively challenging our subservience to civilian political leadership, they by association put the onus on their fellow servicemembers.


In Civvies say (generally, within limits of sanity) whatever you like. If someone asks you "Hey, aren't you a Marine?", then your answer includes "Yes but my views are specifically not to be taken as representative of the United States Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, or Department of Defense". I wrote a piece for my home-town paper (Birmingham News) when I was deployed, and had to include that as a matter of law - they may have edited it, I can't remember; I remember I also had to get my chain of command to approve the publication before I sent it out.

The rules are different for reservists - you can even run for office. But you cannot use your rank, billet, or service to attempt to further any political position less generic than "I Love America".
 
now you see military and politics is a tricky game.showing your opinion on a forum and doing it in public are two different things.we are entitled to believe what we want,where we want,but not permitted to say what we want.like i said before joining the tea party is considered treason.the ows movement im not quite sure because it was barely a blip on the radar when i left active duty so you would have to ask a current active duty soldier if its considered treason or not.
 
The part I like about UCMJ Article 88 (that was mentioned earlier) it specifies "commissioned officer".

Article 88—Contempt toward officials

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
 
Last edited:
gotta love it,commisioned officers are still part of the military,atleast when they dont view themselves as gods.
 
Can't say that I agree with this quote entirely, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion. From the film Jarhead

Kruger: This is censorship.
SSgt Sykes: This is what?
Kruger: Censorship. You're telling us what we can and can't say to the press. That's un-American.
Anthony 'Swoff' Swofford: Yeah, what about freedom of speech? The Constitution?
SSgt Sykes: No, you signed a contract. You don't have any rights. You got any complaints you complain to Saddam Insane and see if he gives a ****.
Kruger: Why that's exactly what Saddam Hussein does. You're treating us the same way.
SSgt Sykes: You are a Marine. There is no such thing as speech that is free. You must pay for everything that you say.
Click to expand...

That's simply what happens when you sign a contract. Same thing goes in sports. When an NBA or NFL player signs that deal, there are certain behaviors he cannot engage in, and certain things he is not allowed to say.

That being said, I don't have any problem with the incident mentioned in the OP where the individual started a Facebook page, but from what I know, in these situations the smart thing to do is to consult with someone in the chain-of-command who knows the rules and instructs you on what you can or can't do.

I believe that military members should have the freedom to express their political opinions, but their behaviors and activity are rightly limited (for instance, attending a political protest or rally in uniform is not allowed, which I think is appropriate.)
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
gotta love it,commisioned officers are still part of the military,atleast when they dont view themselves as gods.
Click to expand...

Hey there devil, you better stow that crap. they are commissioned officers. they went to college. they probably got a degree in art history, or something else that is really amazing and makes them much much smarter than you. learn your place.
 
cpwill said:
Hey there devil, you better stow that crap. they are commissioned officers. they went to college. they probably got a degree in art history, or something else that is really amazing and makes them much much smarter than you. learn your place.
Click to expand...

love that speach.in reality officers are hit or miss on the awesome scale.officers are taught that they can never be wrong and that they are above and beyong enlisted opinions.any smart officer will say wait a minute that enisted works everyday around what my decision will be based,let ask them before i choose.some officers get the ocs wespoint view stuck in their heads and literally believe officers can never make a bad choice and enlisted can never be right.luckily every commander my company has ever had served infantry enlisted before ocs,makes everyones job alot easier.

phone 108.jpg
 
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...

beerftw said:
the military believes you can freely vote,but showing any dis-interest in any politician can be viewed as rallying the troops against the government they serve.ironically our own oath is in conflict with itself should a civil war break out in this country,but is heavily against any form of rebellion.


as far as the military is concerned you are entitled to your opinion but keep it to yourself.just keep in mind the military is still run by old generals who believe if you dont go to church your a godless communist.actually everything you do is support of communism to them,but luckily these old men are being phased out through retirement and there are very few left,but yet those very few still run the highest positions in the military.
Click to expand...

TNAR said:
From my recollection, the emphasis is on neutrality. The military is supposed to be an apolitical entity so the higher-ups frown on any political extremism. Obviously this is very subjective which allows for widely differing policies from base to base. Pretty much any political speech is permissible provided that it is not performed in uniform or made to look like the official stance of the military.

In this particular case I would bet the issue is the label "Armed Forces". This is how so many veterans groups get away with "extreme" political speech even in cases of active duty or reserve members.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
See: South America, Coups, History of.

The Military is very explicitly apolitical and for good damn reason. When a servicemember leverages their position and their service in order to attempt to lend weight to a political position, not only are they effectively challenging our subservience to civilian political leadership, they by association put the onus on their fellow servicemembers.


In Civvies say (generally, within limits of sanity) whatever you like. If someone asks you "Hey, aren't you a Marine?", then your answer includes "Yes but my views are specifically not to be taken as representative of the United States Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, or Department of Defense". I wrote a piece for my home-town paper (Birmingham News) when I was deployed, and had to include that as a matter of law - they may have edited it, I can't remember; I remember I also had to get my chain of command to approve the publication before I sent it out.

The rules are different for reservists - you can even run for office. But you cannot use your rank, billet, or service to attempt to further any political position less generic than "I Love America".
Click to expand...

Thank you to those who offered your perspectives in response to my question. I remember when my mother was a comptroller for a government agency and she stayed away from certain engagements for this same reason.

In regards to the OP, I guess its how you interpret the title "Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots" and whether it uses the legitimacy of the military to further enhance this person's group.

My personal view and the way I read this title is "this guy is for the tea party and he happens to be in the military" I would probably read it the same way if it was Tea Party Accountants, Tea Party Janitorial Patriots, or whatever. However, there are those who hold the military in extremely high regard and may or may not read other meanings into it. But in the end its a matter of interpretation.

Given that, I personally am not comfortable with the idea that this person intended to use the legitimacy of the military name to further his cause.

However, given all that stuff I just wrote. I am having trouble seeing how the poll applies in such a general manner in regards to this case. As far as I can tell, those who are doing the prosecuting have the same concerns I just raised and that concern is something that those who answered my question also seem to share.
 
beerftw said:
gotta love it,commisioned officers are still part of the military,atleast when they dont view themselves as gods.
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
Hey there devil, you better stow that crap. they are commissioned officers. they went to college. they probably got a degree in art history, or something else that is really amazing and makes them much much smarter than you. learn your place.
Click to expand...

You're god damn right.
 
beerftw said:
View attachment 67123685
Click to expand...

Ha! Watch this. I love it. Reminds me of the on-board video of an Apache doing a low-level flight and the pilot says, "Think we can make it through those trees?" The gunner says, "I don't think so. Let's go over them." The pilot responds with quite possibly the best line ever:

"Watch this, oh ye of little faith!"

Of course they hit the trees.

EDIT: Check out the video.
 
Last edited:
TNAR said:
Ha! Watch this. I love it. Reminds me of the on-board video of an Apache doing a low-level flight and the pilot says, "Think we can make it through those trees?" The gunner says, "I don't think so. Let's go over them." The pilot responds with quite possibly the best line ever:

"Watch this, oh ye of little faith!"

Of course they hit the trees.

EDIT: Check out the video.
Click to expand...




phone 114.jpg

food for thought
 
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...

The potential to go global?

LOL

Oh **** - oh **** - did this idea just NOW occur to our military? Good god are we ****ed with such slow idiots behind the helm.

Look: if you don't LIKE it - don't do it . . . don't join - or go awol, drop out and accept the happy consequences of your joyful decisions. :shrug:

I think too many people join without seriously considering ALL the implications.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The potential to go global?

LOL

Oh **** - oh **** - did this idea just NOW occur to our military? Good god are we ****ed with such slow idiots behind the helm.

Look: if you don't LIKE it - don't do it . . . don't join - or go awol, drop out and accept the happy consequences of your joyful decisions. :shrug:

I think too many people join without seriously considering ALL the implications.
Click to expand...

not sure about the marines or nave,but the army royally goes over the same thing over and over to avoid lawsuit.when you join its like are you sure you say yes.then they make you sign 38 other papers asking the same thing and saying if you want to back out nows the time.then you sign the final paper then swear your oath.

even then you can back out on the bus going to basic,the military doesnt care at the point because they havent lost anything.once your on the bus or plane the army has money invested,and theres no turning back at that point without punishment.
 
MarineTpartier said:
SAN DIEGO (AP)...

Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.
Click to expand...


I smell Orly Taitz.


beerftw said:
...NOT FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION-MILITARY USE ONLY. if that doesnt say how our government views soldiers nothing will.
Click to expand...

I cast 'dispel nonsense'.

With basic pay, medical benefits, food, housing and the Gi Bill/College Fun pro-rated, dudes fresh out of highschool are doing 40k/year (well, that's what I was doing in '91, after the math). We are the best paid, best benefited, best treated medically, most technologically advanced military in the world. Perhaps you would also like to complain about the military budget being too high.
 
Last edited:
It's similar to me telling our drummer not to go political through the microphone on stage. He wanted to announce that Ron Paul had won a debate (which he didn't actually end up winning). I told him to never ever get political as a band member, because no matter what side you are on, you just lost half of our audience.

The Marine in question, by voicing his disdain for Obama has just soured my opinion of the USMC. There's no need for that. I want to like the Marines and be in strong support of our mightiest soldiers. If they all hate Obama to a man, they need to keep it to themselves. Either keep your politics to yourself, or keep being a US Marine to yourself while giving political viewpoints.

My opinion only applies to general public attention. Marine members of this message board are free to speak at will because it's a closed club.
 
Soldiers of any stamp using their position in any way, shape, or form to promote politics of any kind is simply dangerous. That can so easily lead to a long slippery slope that they simply don't let it get started at all because the consequences are too great. If you want the free speech rights of a civilian then make damn sure no one hearing your message knows you're military. In the case of Facebook I wouldn't even post a picture of yourself.

Redress said:
Good question! On the facebook page, calling it "Armed Forces..." is probably going to have gone too far. Military personnel can express their own political opinions, but have to be clear that it is personal opinion and not the opinion of the service. Advocating not following orders for any reason in such a setting is also probably going to be inappropriate. In both cases, he really skirts close to the line.
Click to expand...
I'm sure using "Armed Forced" didn't help but part of his self-description also includes:
... and active-duty, eight-year Marine Corps veteran.
Click to expand...
It's obvious from both he's making an appeal partially based on his military standing. If he just wanted to express his views as a civilian neither of these phrases should be there.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
It's similar to me telling our drummer not to go political through the microphone on stage. He wanted to announce that Ron Paul had won a debate (which he didn't actually end up winning). I told him to never ever get political as a band member, because no matter what side you are on, you just lost half of our audience.

The Marine in question, by voicing his disdain for Obama has just soured my opinion of the USMC. There's no need for that. I want to like the Marines and be in strong support of our mightiest soldiers. If they all hate Obama to a man, they need to keep it to themselves. Either keep your politics to yourself, or keep being a US Marine to yourself while giving political viewpoints.

My opinion only applies to general public attention. Marine members of this message board are free to speak at will because it's a closed club.
Click to expand...

So one Marine's opinion just soured your view of an entire organization? Wow, that's a pretty illogical view you have there. That would be equilvalent of me saying I hate all bands because you said that. In addition, you would be surprised how many military members do not like Obama. Very surprised. I don't base that off of polls or anything like that. I just base it off of what I've heard and what I've seen.
Moving on, the issue in question is a valid one. The subject of this article states that if President Obama gave the order to arrest military service members for buring the Quran, he would refuse. A lot of you say that he is wrong for that. What if the operator of the Predator UAV that took out Anwar al-Awlaki would have refused his order? That is a very controversial order that was given and one that, I believe, could have been refused with good justification,
We, as Marines, are not automatons with no brain. We have a concious, we know what is right and wrong, and we won't execute orders that are wrong. The Marine stated he would refuse an order to arrest fellow service members for burning a Quran. Where in the UCMJ is it illegal to burn a Quran? Nowhere. So what does that make it? AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. I don't care who gives the order, if its wrong, I'm not doing it. And not wrong by my standards. I'm talking wrong by legal standards.
 
MarineTpartier said:
So one Marine's opinion just soured your view of an entire organization? Wow, that's a pretty illogical view you have there. That would be equilvalent of me saying I hate all bands because you said that. In addition, you would be surprised how many military members do not like Obama. Very surprised. I don't base that off of polls or anything like that. I just base it off of what I've heard and what I've seen.
Moving on, the issue in question is a valid one. The subject of this article states that if President Obama gave the order to arrest military service members for buring the Quran, he would refuse. A lot of you say that he is wrong for that. What if the operator of the Predator UAV that took out Anwar al-Awlaki would have refused his order? That is a very controversial order that was given and one that, I believe, could have been refused with good justification,
We, as Marines, are not automatons with no brain. We have a concious, we know what is right and wrong, and we won't execute orders that are wrong. The Marine stated he would refuse an order to arrest fellow service members for burning a Quran. Where in the UCMJ is it illegal to burn a Quran? Nowhere. So what does that make it? AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. I don't care who gives the order, if its wrong, I'm not doing it. And not wrong by my standards. I'm talking wrong by legal standards.
Click to expand...

I read your OP carefully and I read both links. I did not see where the Marine in question said anything about arresting fellow Marines for burning the Koran.

I thought those books were burned by the Army.

EDIT: I could also give a **** about how many Marines hate the President. I have several (ex) Marine buddies that I hang out with. Politics just never comes up.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
I read your OP carefully and I read both links. I did not see where the Marine in question said anything about arresting fellow Marines for burning the Koran.

I thought those books were burned by the Army.

EDIT: I could also give a **** about how many Marines hate the President. I have several (ex) Marine buddies that I hang out with. Politics just never comes up.
Click to expand...
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.
 
They should be free to express anything as any other citizen is allowed.
 
MarineTpartier said:
.... The Marine stated he would refuse an order to arrest fellow service members for burning a Quran. Where in the UCMJ is it illegal to burn a Quran? Nowhere. So what does that make it? AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. I don't care who gives the order, if its wrong, I'm not doing it. And not wrong by my standards. I'm talking wrong by legal standards.
Click to expand...
I was in the USAF from '68 to '72. If you were given an order to not burn any Quran, on duty or off, the order is lawful. If you did burn a Quran and nothing happened you could receive nonjudicial punishment, e.g. no leave, Class A Pass taken, etc. But if something happened because of the burning you could end up in the brig for years. It is this way and it has to be this way.

BTY, I did share facilities w/ Marines several times. The Marines were the most loyal and indoctrinated service. They did what they were told more than the USAF, Army or Navy.
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
I was in the USAF from '68 to '72. If you were given an order to not burn any Quran, on duty or off, the order is lawful. If you did burn a Quran and nothing happened you could receive nonjudicial punishment, e.g. no leave, Class A Pass taken, etc. But if something happened because of the burning you could end up in the brig for years. It is this way and it has to be this way.

BTY, I did share facilities w/ Marines several times. The Marines were the most loyal and indoctrinated service. They did what they were told more than the USAF, Army or Navy.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom