Hacker News Reader

Comment by geoffsanders | Hacker News Reader

As a former member of the US Air Force, I can say that no matter how the press or anyone tries to spin this, this is NOT a first amendment issue, it is an insubordination issue.

Every US military installation in the world displays the current upper echelon of the chain-of-command in their offices, buildings, and headquarters, and I can assure you that every US base in the world presently shows President Obama on top of that command. The POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief, and for a Marine to insult the POTUS is just as insubordinate as insulting the Commandant of the Marines (technically it's worse). Furthermore, every active duty soldier is told to keep their political opinions to themselves - it's common knowledge in the military, and this soldier clearly thought those rules didn't apply to him. The military handles soldiers who don't follow rules in a very predictable fashion...

Tough titties, Sergeant.

View on HN

Thanks for reminding me why I don't re-enlist in the Corps. This is a first amendment issue, or rather a matter for the Services to straighten out how they strip rights from GI's.

A Marine/Sailor/Soldier/Airman/Coastie still retains their rights to freedom of speech and most importantly, political opinion. You can't possibly put this case of voicing political opinion on the same level as insubordination. Perhaps, PERHAPS if he had refused deployment due to a lack of belief that President Obama wasn't a citizen (the birther issue from a few years back); however even that has its' political backing.

Insubordination is refusing to pick up your pack and keep trudging, not expressing your political opinions.

Voicing political opinion is fine, dissing the CIC is a big no-no, as he's part of your chain of command. This is pretty clear in the UCMJ.

I'm glad you didn't re-enlist either, especially since you are patently wrong. I suppose you think you can insult your boss at work in the civilian world without discipline either? I encourage you to take a look at DOD Directive 1344.10 and consider the Sergeants comments such as (among others): "As an active duty Marine, I say screw Obama" or the fact that he sold anti-Obama bumper stickers - all of which are in clear violation of DOD Directive 1344.10. Additionally this Marine was told by superior officers previously to not engage in such activity and did so anyway, yet you think none of this constitutes insubordination? Not only was he insubordinate, he was contempt.

Whether you like the rule or not, military law is very clear and concise about the types of comments and actions that can be made towards the commander-in-chief. Bare in mind, this is an ACTIVE duty soldier criticizing the CURRENT sitting president - not just a comment about the institution as a whole or a politician outside his direct chain of command.

All things considered, this Marine is lucky he isn't facing court martial.

His being told by his superior officers to not engage in his political opinion is very near an illegal order in and of-itself. The Tea Party website holds a disclaimer that all posts are made by individuals and are not representation of opinion of the military as a whole. It doesn't matter that he sold anti-Obama bumper bumper stickers, that's voicing your opinion for the next candidate of the next election. The comment "As an active duty Marine, I say screw Obama" may be grounds for reprimand but being forcibly separated? PLEASE.

If you want to pull out the directive knock yourself out, I recommend starting with:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.8. Display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.

Comparing political dissent to contempt is a joke argument. The lines are shades of grey when it comes to speaking about the Presidency. Contempt would apply when it would come to one's direct chain-of-command not when it covers a political official, elected, into a public office. Everyone has a right to democracy even those who restricted their rights by joining the military.

Ok okay, you're right - I, the US military, the Marines, his commanding officers, and all of the legal reviews to date are all just wrong. Laugh.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough. Sgt. Gary Stein has has filed in Federal Court that the Separation Board ignored the law. Given that they offered no explanation for why they cast their votes in the manner they did added with the legal precedent of US vs Wilcox, it's a bit hard to disagree with him. After a proper review of the board, and the law, in a civilian court we'll find out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com