• 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
Thrilla said:
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)
Click to expand...

So do you think we shouldn't be able to vote then?
 
MarineTpartier said:
I agree that we should not be able to speak publicly about politics while in uniform. I whole heartedly agree with you.
Click to expand...
Which he violated as far as I'm concerned by using "Armed Forces" and "active-duty, eight-year Marine Corps veteran" on the same page. Armed Forces could be confusing and nebulous but certainly "active-duty, eight-year Marine Corps veteran" is perfectly clear and the two used together leads to an even bigger affect. He may as well have stood on stage in uniform and starting speaking.

However, his overall point about not following an unlawful order is a valid one.
Click to expand...
And this needed to be addressed on a world stage because?? (And make no mistake, the Internet is a world stage.) If he has troops I'm sure he could have arranged a "training session" on unlawful orders and gotten his point across to them - and anyone else in the unit that wanted to hear - in a perfectly legitimate fashion. Otherwise, he could have discussed it at any gathering of his military friends/peers simply as an exercise in interpreting orders. No, I wasn't in the military but I was in government long enough to know there are many ways to get things done and still stay within the established rules, even if the letter of those rules don't allow it. If he's been in 8 years then he ought to know that, too.


I am a big supporter of the military and those in uniform but there are some things you just don't do.

MarineTpartier said:
So do you think we shouldn't be able to vote then?
Click to expand...
I think if we all had to stand up in public, declare our occupation, then publicly vote their would be some issues, yes. But we don't have to do any of that so the question is moot.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Which he violated as far as I'm concerned by using "Armed Forces" and "active-duty, eight-year Marine Corps veteran" on the same page. Armed Forces could be confusing and nebulous but certainly "active-duty, eight-year Marine Corps veteran" is perfectly clear and the two used together leads to an even bigger affect. He may as well have stood on stage in uniform and starting speaking.
Click to expand...
He may as well have? He didn't. He did nothing wrong, according to the UCMJ. If that makes you mad, get over it. He followed the rules. That's why the court martial they are thinking about starting on him will not stick. If you don't like what his Facebook page says, don't read it.

MoSurveyor said:
And this needed to be addressed on a world stage because?? (And make no mistake, the Internet is a world stage.) If he has troops I'm sure he could have arranged a "training session" on unlawful orders and gotten his point across to them - and anyone else in the unit that wanted to hear - in a perfectly legitimate fashion. Otherwise, he could have discussed it at any gathering of his military friends/peers simply as an exercise in interpreting orders. No, I wasn't in the military but I was in government long enough to know there are many ways to get things done and still stay within the established rules, even if the letter of those rules don't allow it. If he's been in 8 years then he ought to know that, too.
Click to expand...
Again, no one has to read his Facebook page. And, he is within the rules. As a member of the military, and the same branch as him, I know without a doubt he will be exonerated of any charge the Marine Corps tries to bring against him. He did nothing wrong and stayed within the parameters of the UCMJ.

MoSurveyor said:
I think if we all had to stand up in public, declare our occupation, then publicly vote their would be some issues, yes. But we don't have to do any of that so the question is moot.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Good point. I will cede that to you.
 
MarineTpartier said:
He may as well have? He didn't. He did nothing wrong, according to the UCMJ. If that makes you mad, get over it. He followed the rules. That's why the court martial they are thinking about starting on him will not stick. If you don't like what his Facebook page says, don't read it.

Again, no one has to read his Facebook page. And, he is within the rules. As a member of the military, and the same branch as him, I know without a doubt he will be exonerated of any charge the Marine Corps tries to bring against him. He did nothing wrong and stayed within the parameters of the UCMJ.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make me mad - but it also wouldn't make me mad if he were punished, either, because I can certainly see the other side of it. If Command decides it's within the bounds of the UCMJ then I'm good with that. I would never presume to judge the military when it comes to their areas of expertise. (And you will often see this in my posts. For example, I'm for gay rights but I did not rail against the military's DADT policy nor their policies before and after it.)

On the other hand it could be the military hasn't figured out what to do with the Internet, yet, and they've got plenty of company with the Courts and Congress standing next to them.
 
Last edited:
I don't like my civillian bosshole, but you won't see me posting that I'm not going to do what he tells me to do on Facebook.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It doesn't make me mad - but it also wouldn't make me mad if he were punished, either, because I can certainly see the other side of it. If Command decides it's within the bounds of the UCMJ then I'm good with that. I would never presume to judge the military when it comes to their areas of expertise. (And you will often see this in my posts. For example, I'm for gay rights but I did not rail against the military's DADT policy nor their policies before and after it.)

On the other hand it could be the military hasn't figured out what to do with the Internet, yet, and they've got plenty of company with the Courts and Congress standing next to them.
Click to expand...

The military actually handles the internet rather well. Its not the forum the Marine in question used that is under the microscope, its his statements. He could have said it at a social function or just at work and been reprimanded for it. The UCMJ is very extensive and has the "catch all" article, 134. The bad part, or good part depending on who you talk to, is that the military justice system is very rank and status biased. If a military judge see's that a full bird Colonel wrote up a Sergeant for something, he tends to sway towards the senior ranking servicemember. Its natural for anyone in the military to believe the senior man over the junior man simply because you would think the senior man has a more vested interest in the overall good for their respective branch of service.
 
Mickey Shane said:
I don't like my civillian bosshole, but you won't see me posting that I'm not going to do what he tells me to do on Facebook.
Click to expand...

Your civilian "bosshole" can't send you to a far away land to kill people in the name of your organization either. That's a little different than your boss telling you to put your TPS Report cover sheet on next time.
 
MarineTpartier said:
The military actually handles the internet rather well. Its not the forum the Marine in question used that is under the microscope, its his statements. He could have said it at a social function or just at work and been reprimanded for it. The UCMJ is very extensive and has the "catch all" article, 134. The bad part, or good part depending on who you talk to, is that the military justice system is very rank and status biased. If a military judge see's that a full bird Colonel wrote up a Sergeant for something, he tends to sway towards the senior ranking servicemember. Its natural for anyone in the military to believe the senior man over the junior man simply because you would think the senior man has a more vested interest in the overall good for their respective branch of service.
Click to expand...

Actually, they're just learning to handle the internet well right now. It has only been in the last year or so that they have included watching what you put on the internet as a formal part of their annual information awareness training. (We just had that training Saturday, btw.) And it includes watching what you put up on social networking sites, including things that could affect the mission (pics, info, etc.). There are other trainings that include social networking sites in them that address what you can and cannot post that could affect a servicemember's own career, and that does include pics of them doing illegal (or at least against the UCMJ) activities and posting comments that would be considered "disrespecting the chain of command".
 
Mickey Shane said:
I don't like my civillian bosshole, but you won't see me posting that I'm not going to do what he tells me to do on Facebook.
Click to expand...
Fight the power, baby. Next time he tells you to do something you dont like just look him right square in the eyes and tell him hell no...you've cleaned your last fryer!!!

You CAN say that on Facebook. You may choose not to but you have the freedom to do so without repercussion.
 
Disclaimer #1: I have not read the entire thread, only about 10 posts.

Disclaimer #2: IMO, this question does not fit neatly in a box with a bow on top. The answer is more complex.

My answer is that, although it counters most everything I believe in regarding free speech, military members forfeit their right to speak freely politically while they are military members. The mission, even in peace time, is too critical to be upended by some asshat with a greivence to air.

Disclaimer #3: This does not mean blind adherence to dumbass policy, btw.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, they're just learning to handle the internet well right now. It has only been in the last year or so that they have included watching what you put on the internet as a formal part of their annual information awareness training. (We just had that training Saturday, btw.) And it includes watching what you put up on social networking sites, including things that could affect the mission (pics, info, etc.). There are other trainings that include social networking sites in them that address what you can and cannot post that could affect a servicemember's own career, and that does include pics of them doing illegal (or at least against the UCMJ) activities and posting comments that would be considered "disrespecting the chain of command".
Click to expand...

So, I take it you're a reservist since you came in for annual training on Saturday. The active duty side has been doing training on this a lot longer than the last year. It is a part of the "Information Awareness" training on MarineNet. I don't know what the Navy equivalent to MarineNet is, but we've been doing it awhile. If I remember correctly, about 3 years.
 
MarineTpartier said:
So, I take it you're a reservist since you came in for annual training on Saturday. The active duty side has been doing training on this a lot longer than the last year. It is a part of the "Information Awareness" training on MarineNet. I don't know what the Navy equivalent to MarineNet is, but we've been doing it awhile. If I remember correctly, about 3 years.
Click to expand...

I've only been a reservist since '08 when I got off active duty, which I was on for almost 10 years. I know what training is required and what training we had changed in the last few years. I notice things like that. Navy uses NKO. We had ours changed about a year and a half ago, still not that long overall, considering we have been using the internet for almost 10 years now for social networking.

Oh, and I didn't do "annual training" on Saturday. I had drill this past weekend (you know, the one weekend a month thing). I start AT in about 2 weeks, which will be 3 weeks working in the shipyard.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
I've only been a reservist since '08 when I got off active duty, which I was on for almost 10 years. I know what training is required and what training we had changed in the last few years. I notice things like that. Navy uses NKO. We had ours changed about a year and a half ago, still not that long overall, considering we have been using the internet for almost 10 years now for social networking.

Oh, and I didn't do "annual training" on Saturday. I had drill this past weekend (you know, the one weekend a month thing). I start AT in about 2 weeks, which will be 3 weeks working in the shipyard.
Click to expand...

I knew what you meant by annual training. I work on the I&I staff of a reserve Marine unit right now. You guys do 3 weeks of AT?
 
MarineTpartier said:
I knew what you meant by annual training. I work on the I&I staff of a reserve Marine unit right now. You guys do 3 weeks of AT?
Click to expand...

Personnel in my unit are required to do at least 3 weeks of AT to support one of the Navy shipyards. We go individually to whatever shop needs each of our particular skills.

Most other Navy units go on AT as a unit.
 
Redress said:
No they are not. They are still people.
Click to expand...

I take it you have never actually read the contract people have to sign in order to enter military service. It states in no uncertain terms that once you sign your body becomes property of the military - moreover, this condition is permanent. They will always own you and can exercise that ownership (within prescribed parameters) when they see fit.
 
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...

Military men and women are Americans, and as such, have the right to express political opinions. However, they do not have the right to commit insubordination, which is a crime. The President is Commander in Chief, and his orders are to be followed. Not doing so is a serious offense that falls outside of the First Amendment. Whether disobeying the President, or a General, or even a ranking NCO, it does not fall under the scope of the First Amendment. It is a serious crime, known as insubordination. Since the OP attempts to link First Amendment rights to refusing to follow lawful orders, the poll question itself is seriously flawed. The soldier should be allowed to talk Tea Party all he wants to, but the minute he states that he will refuse to follow lawful orders, he has committed a crime, and should be prosecuted for it. He does not have the right to decide for himself what lawful orders are. If he did, it would open up the floodgates for many others to decide for themselves which orders they will or will not follow, based on their own whims, and then the chain of command breaks down. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

NOTE: Sgt. Stein's refusal to follow lawful orders is based on his nutty birther belief that Obama is not an American citizen, and therefore, all orders from Obama are unlawful. IMHO, this makes him unfit to command others, and he should be busted back to private, as well as being prosecuted and sentenced for insubordination, before being given his dishonorable discharge. After that, he is free to join Orly Taitz and her group of fruitcakes.
 
Last edited:
Which unlawful orders has Obama given? Has he ordered troops to kill any innocent civilians? Maybe he's told them to burn down a few homes? Has he made them break any part of the Geneva Conventions? No? Then tell that little bitch to stfu already. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Which unlawful orders has Obama given? Has he ordered troops to kill any innocent civilians? Maybe he's told them to burn down a few homes? Has he made them break any part of the Geneva Conventions? No? Then tell that little bitch to stfu already. :roll:
Click to expand...

According to the Sgt, all of Obama's orders are unlawful, because he was born in Kenya and is not a US citizen, and so is not really commander in chief. Sheesh!
 
VanceMack said:
Fight the power, baby. Next time he tells you to do something you dont like just look him right square in the eyes and tell him hell no...you've cleaned your last fryer!!!

You CAN say that on Facebook. You may choose not to but you have the freedom to do so without repercussion.
Click to expand...

If one of my co-workers saw it on Facebook, or the Boss for that matter, I could be fired. Then I'd be unemployed like you.
 
danarhea said:
According to the Sgt, all of Obama's orders are unlawful, because he was born in Kenya and is not a US citizen, and so is not really commander in chief. Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Do you have a link supporting this claim? I haven't seen anyone on here provide any proof that he is a birther other than their accusation. Thanks.
 
not realy sure how the US military works but isnt the president head of the armed forces? If that is the case then no they should not be allowed to call a cmmanding officer a jackass in public
 
Higgins86 said:
not realy sure how the US military works but isnt the president head of the armed forces? If that is the case then no they should not be allowed to call a cmmanding officer a jackass in public
Click to expand...

they can, just not under the colors of their employer.

Joe blow can say " Obama is a jackass" all day long
but Sgt. Joe Blow can't.
Capt. Joe Blow really can't
 
Thrilla said:
they can, just not under the colors of their employer.

Joe blow can say " Obama is a jackass" all day long
but Sgt. Joe Blow can't.
Capt. Joe Blow really can't
Click to expand...


even in civies I imagine it would still be frowned upon if you did it in public! I couldnt of just slagged one of my old officers in the pub because if someone told him about it I would be in the ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom