• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Corps wants him booted

I'm with you on this one Lenny. Tough call. My constitutional side says let him talk but my veteran side says he knew the terms of his enlistment. I feel his pain for sure.
 
I can actually see both sides. I would not like the feeling of risking my life and having to bite my tongue. However, it really isn't in the best interest of America (for any side), to have our military somehow start disengaging from our president. What type of message does it send to other countries if our military starts to demonstrate against our own president?...

Tough call, though. Because I am a proponent of free speech. I also believe that contrast in opinions is important in order to make good decisions. But I think this particular issue would be a counter-productive one. Not on the basis of his feelings towards the president, but as his role as a military leader, which is a role to serve the president's decisions.
 
I don't have time during my kunch break to view the video (I wouldn't get sound anyway) and this is not an easy decision for anyone. What I do like is that there are members of our armed forces that know the difference between blindly following unlawful orders and the Constitutional rights of the US citizens should that eve become a major issue here.
 
Michael823 said:
... but as his role as a military leader, which is a role to serve the president's decisions.
Click to expand...
Actually the oath taken is:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Click to expand...
Firstly warfighters do not SERVE the president's decisions.

He took an oath to defend and support the US Constitution first and foremost. And to obey the orders of those above him according to regulations and the UCMJ. If indeed he only stated he would not follow unlawful orders to carry out actions against the citizens of the US then he should not be kicked out or punished. If he stated he would not follow lawful orders given through the chain of command then he should not be allowed to remain a Marine.
 
Well, the Pentagon is citing their policy of non-involvement in political matters. I guess it depends on what all he posted. Anyone actively serving is not permitted to speak against or for a politician because the military in general remains neutral. This is because of how much power the military could wield when it comes to political matters.

If the soldier has a problem with a specific order or command, then it should be addressed through the military and not on Facebook. If he was making a general statement, well, I suppose the context and his motives matter. If he was criticizing Obama directly, then he violated long standing policy.

It depends which of these the soldier actually committed.
 
According to Pentagon directives, military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president.
Click to expand...

They can voice their opinions on political matters outside of their jobs in the military as citizens of the United States. I mean if they were to remain neutral, they wouldn't be allow to vote on who ran for President or for congress members or for anything political. We have soldiers who actually vote absentee ballots who are stationed in Korea, Japan, England, Germany, Iraq and Afghanistan. Talking with active duty members, most do actually pay attention to politics as some things directly effect their jobs, their pay and their family.
 
Right, sorry. They can definitely have an opinion and vote, but they cannot endorse a candidate as a representative of the armed forces.
 
Hmmmm, so if I knew of a Sergeant O'Rourke and saw him in civilian clothes handing out leftlets to reelect the current president he not breaking the “code of honor”. But...in uniform he is!!
 
I don't know about the active participation in a parties campaign to elect someone would go against the code of honor.

Mark said there is a huge difference between code conduct while in uniform and out of uniform.
 
Nova_C said:
......... but they cannot endorse a candidate as a representative of the armed forces.
Click to expand...

beautifullywild77 said:
.... there is a huge difference between code conduct while in uniform and out of uniform.
Click to expand...


I'm guess the uniform and a representative of the forces ARE the same thing so.... the Sarge will have to be known and/or refer himself as
Mr O'Rourke while stating his views on the local corner or facebook.

Sounds like the guy just needs a disclaimer!!!
 
I would say so Lenny.

Personally, I find it in bad taste that he is presenting his rank while in civilian cloths. Mark doesn't have to salute officers on base if he is out of uniform.
 
Oh Mark just looked it up on the DOD...
3. POLICY It is DoD policy that:
3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
Click to expand...

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
Click to expand...

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133401p.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top