Gary Stein, Marine Sergeant, Faces Possible Dismissal For Anti-Obama Facebook Posts

SAN DIEGO — A Marine facing dismissal for running a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party that criticizes the Obama administration is still speaking out but has been getting little support from military law experts and free speech advocates who say he may have crossed the line.

Sgt. Gary Stein planned to speak at a tea party meeting in San Diego County later Thursday, a day after the Marine Corps notified him that it is moving to dismiss him for violating the Pentagon's policy barring troops from engaging in political activities.

The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticizing the commander in chief.

David Loy, of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego County, said he has not followed Stein's case closely, but that based on what he has seen in the media he thinks there may be a legitimate concern on the part of the Corps about Stein appearing to be speaking as a member of the armed forces because of his Facebook page's name.

"The military has a very strong interest and appropriately so to remaining neutral," he said. "The last thing we want is our military taking side on political issues."

Former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, agreed.

"He's really rubbing the government's nose in it," he said. "It's really hard to have sympathy for him."

Stein said he is not swayed. He said he received hundreds of emails from service members and the public in support of him.

"They're entitled to their opinions but I still think this is a freedom of speech issue," Stein said. "I'm standing up for the Constitution."

Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he started the page to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights.

The Marine Corps said in a statement that it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow unlawful orders from Obama. He later criticized the comments of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

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.

Stein said his statement about Obama 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.

Stein said in addition to being discharged, he would have his rank reduced to lance corporal if he is proven to be in violation. He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego on Wednesday and given a desk job with no access to computers.

Stein was first cautioned by his superiors at Camp Pendleton in 2010, after he launched his Facebook page and criticized Obama's health care overhaul. Stein volunteered to take down the page while he reviewed the rules at the request of his superiors.

He said he determined he was not in violation and relaunched the page. Stein said he now plans to fight the charges. He had applied to extend his service, which was set to expire in a few months.

Former military prosecutor Lisa Windsor said since the Civil War, military members have been testing those limits and gotten in trouble. Now those cases can go global because of the Internet.

"I think they've been very lenient with him so far," Windsor said.

Stein said he will not wear his uniform when he speaks to tea party supporters but he likely will mention his case.

Comments

[sbgreenwood]

08:11 AM on 04/06/2012

Does this mean that everyone who works for the federal government could be fired and have all benefits cut off if they say something similar about the president?

[MayFlower27]

03:42 PM on 04/05/2012

If the order comes down a chain of command one would guess he would be derelict in the performance of his duties. However, if it were a direct order that was not an lawful order from a civillian rather than trained mililitary chain of command that would be a question most people cannot answer. It seems many politicians are not military science or subject matter experts in some procedures and would refer to an expert advisor.

[Art LeCompte]

07:04 AM on 04/07/2012

Great questions raised here, but wrong case. Sgt Stein originally appeared to indicate he would not follow an order he was never given. He did so publically and as a member of the military. If he felt that there was a likelihood that he was about to receive such an order, he had legal recourse within the military. Instead, he chose to take it public without a determination in a court as to what the legality may or may not be.

Now to your questions. I'd be interested in how you would apply them to ground level participents in the torture of captured terriost suspects in view of recent legal opinions leaning toward that being an illegal activity.

[Art LeCompte]

05:25 PM on 04/03/2012

Curious...what's the over/under on this being a deliberate tea party action to raise a pre-election issue claiming President Obama wants to deny our military their constitutional rights?

[Art LeCompte]

09:31 PM on 04/03/2012

Sorry folks, first time blues. when the first one disappeared, I thought it was lost. Anyway, our local news here in the San Diego area just featured one of our Republican congessmen explaining how Mr. Stein was just hypothesizing, that the military is allowed to have facebook pages and he is just talking with a few friends...

[Art LeCompte]

04:22 PM on 04/03/2012

This is a straight up political ploy to raise another tea party attack on President Obama...just in time to be voiced before the election. His filing of the suit is to gain more media attention. That has worked. His next phase will be to get prominent tea party folks to proclaim the injustice of his plight due to the "evils" of the Obama administration wanting to deny our military of their constitutional rights. His tactics are slick, but totally transparent...to wit: site name--disclaimer; his affirmation of obeying lawful orders--just what all soldiers are to do regardless of political affiliation; and non-participation in posts--I've got clean hands. If he wins(remember the 5-4 Supreme Court), Obama is evil. If he loses, he plays the martyr and Obama is still evil. Just watch and see how this all plays out...then, watch for my big "I told you so!" in caps.

[Khyvi]

09:42 AM on 03/27/2012

It is true that under the US Constitution, citizens have the right to freedom of speech. However, Stein is under contract with the military and they no longer have the same rights as regular citizens do. When he took that oath when he joined the military, he should have known better than to post public slander that could be traced back to him. Shoot, I'm pretty sure he's not the first or last guy in the military that doesn't like the current president during the time they are serving, but the fact that he posted it on Facebook makes it a problem. Besides, he is essentially the government's property. He shouldn't have talked about his "boss" because now he's suffering the consequences. Really, the point is to keep things that could be held against you OFF the internet, people.

[Sral Rolyat]

07:56 AM on 04/01/2012

Almost all of your assumptions are wrong.

1. We are not the government's property. Not even close.
2. We do not give up our rights. We retain all of our constitutional rights. Just as you do. Our rights, like everyone elses rights, are weighed in the balance against other nation's interest and other people's rights. Just as there are limits on you rights if it endagers or harms others, or damages the nation, there are limits on our rights. THe difference is that due to our service irresponsible actions are more likely to harm our nation.
3. We retain our political rights - we just cannot exercise them in uniform or in a manner that makes it appear that we are representing the U.S. or the Military.

Sgt Stein intentionally exercised his political rights in a manner intended to convey that THE MILITARY was unhappy with President. This was overstepping his rights.

[ShroudedSciuridae]

03:49 PM on 04/03/2012

Sral, I suggest you pay attention during the next Death By PPT presentation on the UCMJ, especially if you actually have subordinates. Check with JAG, they will tell you that you do not have the right to free speech, or any other rights enumerated in the first 10 Amendments. That is because you have the UCMJ, which in most cases replicates those rights (and in many increases). The 5th Amendment for instance is replaced by Article 31.

[Nate Franklin]

03:55 PM on 04/03/2012

From http://nlgmltf.org/leaflets/GI_Rights_free_speech.html

"Article 88 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use "contemptuous words" against the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, and other specified high government officials. Enlisted members can be prosecuted under Article 134 for using similar words."

[Sral Rolyat]

08:00 AM on 04/01/2012

"are weighed in the balance against other nation's interest and other people's rights. "

I meant "our nation's interests" not "other nation's interest".

Interesting typo.
/facepalm.

[Grammaellen]

02:37 PM on 03/25/2012

I voted for Pres. Obama now after reading this new law that he passed on 12-31-11 (NDAA) I just don't know who to vote for now.This law is terrible & violates our precious constitution. Under this law they can target anyone that looks suspicious. Years ago I adopted 4 Native Americans. They have darker skins then some do so will they ever be picked up for this as they may look suspicious? This I fear but my children turned out great. Married had children & some have grandchildren. I love them so very,very much. I,for one, am proud of this Marine for standing up to our president as our president is wrong!!! This president may try to take away our Soc.Sec.& Polosie & Reid has said they would support him.I've signed petitions to ask them not to do this but they seem to think this money belongs to them.If they need money then why don't they go after those from our congress that (IMO) did some inside trading? Where did they get the money to bring up their salary from $200.000 (I may be wrong about this amt.) & brought it up to $700,000? Where did this extra money come from? Look up the "Oathkeepers" and see how many are going against our presidents orders. Our president is suppose to obey our constitition but IMO he's not. Gramma Ellen

[bkhart]

09:31 PM on 03/25/2012

If you are concerned about the issues you have mentioned, do not vote for any republicans, because everything you stated here is a direct result of a republican bill.

[Casey Baker]

01:34 AM on 03/24/2012

I understand the point this guy was trying to make, but he definitely crossed a line and broke his contract. If he'd been expressing political views as "Gary Stein the private citizen" rather than "Gary Stein the Marine" then I don't think it would have been a big deal. That was his first big mistake.

The second was saying he wouldn't follow The President's orders. The military is a job just like any other job. Yes, you have certain free speech rights, but if you insult your boss or the CEO of the company you work for and say you're not going to do what you're paid to do, then why should they continue to pay you?

As for the point being made that he made an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution "both foreign and domestic"...if he really thinks that Obama is a threat to the U.S. Constitution, is making a Facebook page supporting the Tea Party the most urgent action he can take? I mean, really?

I think that military personnel should be able to respectfully (keyword!) disagree with people in the chain of command so long as they make it clear that those are their views as private citizens and so long as they realize that they will have to obey orders anyway. You simply can't stick it to your boss or refuse to do what he/she says and still expect to still have a job.

[Sral Rolyat]

08:10 AM on 04/01/2012

I agree with your statement on his first mistake.

However, his statement's that he would not follow the president's order if he was ordered to do something unconstitutional may not have been a violation of his duty.

Soldiers have duty to disobey illegal or unconstitutional orders. It is a tough call and you pay the penalty if you are wrong and you disobey a lawful order. However, they are supposed to disobey illegal or unconsitutional orders.

This is one of the things that distinguishes cops from police. Police are supposed to "respect" your constitutional rights but, unfortunately, they often treat your constitutional rights as obstacles to their accomplishing their work. There is also almost no consequences for police if their violate your constitutional rights. Generally, the worst that happens is the case is dropped or thrown out. At worst their department, and the community pays damages in a lawsuit. Police are rarely held personally liable for violating the consitution and almost never held criminally accountable.

Soldiers on the other hand tend to deeply value the constitution and will absolutely defend it with their lives. They will also be almost certainly and swiftly prosecuted if they are found to have violated people's consitutional rights or given an unconstitutional order.

[Timothy Medeiros]

06:22 PM on 03/23/2012

Regardless of how they or he spins it , he still broke a military contract. Violation of the Pentagon's policy that states troops can not engage in political activities.

[Michael D OBrien]

09:12 PM on 03/24/2012

In 1972, I went to enter the Fort I was stationed at, after placing a 'McGovern' bumper sticker on my car. I was stopped by the MPs and told to remove it promptly. I was a 19 year old Sargeant and was astounded, but followed the command.
He should of tried that 'free speech thingy' when he was a 'boot!' Never would of made it off Paris Island. Can he say, 'alligator chow?'
BWAhahahaha!

[Bobcatter]

09:42 AM on 03/23/2012

Fox News Human Resources is already interviewing him as we speak.

[Nick from Chicago]

03:31 AM on 03/23/2012

He seems to believe that Obama is or may give un-Constitutional orders, and he swore an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic. So then the first question should be is there reason to believe that Obama is or will violate the Constitution? Well, just like most presidents before him, he has. Indefinite arrest of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, assassinating U.S. citizens, the Patriot Act, pre-emptive war, war without Congress's approval, Trespass bill... these all clearly violate our Constitution. You may justify these acts somehow, but don't lie and say they don't. I don't know if Stein got orders to detain/disarm/whatever to a citizen unconstitutionally, but there's plenty of precedent to believe he has or will.

[jdlong1]

08:41 AM on 03/23/2012

You neglect the part of the oath that says: 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.

Nowhere does it say that as a soldier you are to interpret what the constitution means or doesn't mean. That's left to the Supreme Court.

[Bobcatter]

09:39 AM on 03/23/2012

You sir, demand a fan and fav from this Marine.

[Nick from Chicago]

07:47 PM on 03/25/2012

This Marine public affairs officer seems to disagree with you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tbp1hERZjI&feature=fvwrel

I said I didn't agree with the way he handled it. As to the unconstitutional extent this administration is going to, here's our Secretary of Defense in a Congressional hearing saying that they will only seek permission from the UN, NATO, and Arab League to go to war, and that they don't need THIS country's permission, much less consultation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkDyKHYPO7g&feature=related

Here's a Democratic Congressman discussing many of these unconstitutional issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-85z1287Erk

[Timothy Ven]

10:15 AM on 03/23/2012

First: The Patriot Act was legislated during Bush, not Obama. Nice try at laying that to his feet though.
Second: What pre-emptive wars?
Third: Ummmm.... the indefinite detention was written by Congress which is controlled by who again? Oh yeah. Republicans. And they added it to the military budget bill.

[Nick from Chicago]

01:03 PM on 03/23/2012

Yes Bush enacted many laws that violated the Constitution and should have been impeached. It seems most people are more concerned about their political 'party' being in power, than doing what is right. Obama campaigned against the Patriot Act, then extended it's powers once he got into office.

Bush started unconstitutional pre-emptive war, and now Obama has already said he'd commit troops to a pre-emptive war with Iran (when they are not an eminent threat). He campaigned against this too, but once in office, does the opposite.

And yes, Congress wrote the NDAA, but by most accounts, the White House insisted that the power included U.S. citizens, otherwise he wouldn't sign it. And I don't care if Congress wrote it (democrat or republican) the provision clearly violates our Constitution. He could have pointed that out, and have that provision removed.

S

[Nick from Chicago]

10:31 PM on 03/24/2012

I certainly agree that seeing/hearing the whole thing from the source is certainly better than seeing a cutup video. So here is a 7.5 minute Congressional hearing with our Secretary of Defense, discussing what legal basis this administration wants to go to war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt-VAPYElTc&feature=related

I would add that Libya and Syria are not an eminent threat. And I may be off on this, but it took the administration ~90 days to 'inform' Congress they went to war in Libya - with a country that was not a threat to us.
And here is a Democratic Congressman discussing many of these issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-85z1287Erk

[wornoutbiker]

02:11 AM on 03/23/2012

I seem to recall a few years back a small number of troops criticizing Bush. Of course they were just exercising their free-speech rights, according to you Libs. Don't recall whatever happened to them. Anyways, whatever treatment the soldiers under Bush got should be what this fella should get, that is, if you Libs really do believe in fairness and"precedent" like you claim to.

[Nikita007]

09:36 AM on 03/23/2012

Excellent post!

F/ and I'm your first Fan! :)

[Glen Sault]

01:03 PM on 03/23/2012

They probably got hustled right out of the military. Or got taken aside and given the same advice this twerp should get. You don't get to question orders or make policy. Do your duty and be ready to support your brothers in arms when the poop hit's the fan.

[viko66]

01:08 AM on 03/23/2012

He needs to be discharged. He can then join the Tea Party and present as many views as he wants on Facebook and Faux News.

[Nick from Chicago]

03:45 AM on 03/23/2012

How is indefinite detention or assassinations of U.S. citizens without charge or trial not violating the Constitution? Pre-emptive war? Trespass bill? Patriot Act? People may want these things, but they violate our Constitution. Stein took an oath to defend it, against enemies foreign and domestic. That oath is more important than some regulation.

[i3lackops]

09:21 AM on 03/23/2012

All of those things were in place before Obama, but i bet he had no problem with those orders at that time.

[viko66]

07:31 PM on 03/23/2012

So, i'm guessing President Obama is a foreign enemy he was defending us against. This so called marine had been in service before President Obama took office. I'm sure there were no new fantastic and novel cruel orders that he was given now that he had not been given before while President Bush was in office. I don't remember hearing a peep from our tea party political "marine" then. Let's call a spade a spade. It has to do with the color of the President's skin. Feel free to disagree.

[BlueRevolution]

12:58 AM on 03/23/2012

Mr. Stein's drama is very illustrative. So many of his supporters are coming out of the woodwork: the birthers, conspiracy-theorists, and all the people who have simply revealed their racism. Most notable are all the ones who claim to love the American Constitution and American law, but somehow find it legal to do what the (soon to be former) Marine has done. He has every right to his opinion, but legally cannot and should not express it in that manner in his official capacity as a Marine.

The USMC doesn't need soldiers like him who repeatedly flout regulations.There is a very good reason why individual members of the armed forces aren't allowed to do what he has done: it disrupts morale and order among the ranks, and breaks up the unit by political affiliation. What's the point of having a uniform if unity and order are disturbed by overly visible political differences? Soldiers have a job to do, namely, defending America by killing her enemies. Being so overtly political gets in the way of that mission.

[Nick from Chicago]

03:37 AM on 03/23/2012

Their oath didn't say 'our job is to go kill her enemies' - it says to defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. If he believes that Obama is giving orders that violate the Constitution, he took an oath to defend it. I would consider an oath more important than a regulation. And I'd love to hear the argument that indefinite detention / assassinations of U.S. citizens, without charge or trial, is Constitutional. You may believe these acts are 'necessary', but they are not within our law. Therefore, the marine is dutifully following his oath he took to become a marine.

[BlueRevolution]

06:31 AM on 03/23/2012

When a soldier swears to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", in a practical sense, it sometimes means to kill them, especially if ordered to do so on foreign soil. And if ordered into combat, that's exactly what happens.

My original post never actually addressed the issue of whether or not indefinite detention/assinations, without charge or trial, of U.S. citizens is Constitutional. But since you brought them up, why didn't Mr. Stein speak up during the Bush Administration? Hmm? Because he apparently agreed with Mr. Bush's foreign policy. And as with a great many other conservatives, these policies suddenly became disturbing once a Democrat was the CIC (and the new Prez turned out to ironically behave like a moderate Republican).

Whatever the soldier's politics may be, he/she has an extremely limited ability to oppose the Constitutionality of a given order. It's why they are called "soldiers" and not "civilians". Once a person joins the armed forces, he/she agrees to accept these limitations as well as those regulations regarding the volume of political opinions that are allowed to be expressed. As I recall, the last Administration was pretty ruthless in enforcing this rule concerning the invasion of Iraq.

[jdlong1]

09:08 AM on 03/23/2012

The thing is that the oath doesn't tell the soldier to be the one to interpret the Constitution. That's left to the Supreme court. While it may seem "obvious" that some things are unconstitutional, many times that's not the case. As you point out the oath does say to defend the Constitution agains both foreign enimies and domestic, which is pretty much the same oath the President takes. If that's true, then there are obviously times when the President needs to be able to order the detention or even killing of US citizens. I'm as Libertarian as most anyone, but I don't believe its possible to allow the soldiers to question their orders and still be able to be effective.

[revdoc14]

11:22 AM on 03/23/2012

True that ...Well said

[mikelange]

12:40 AM on 03/23/2012

You need to start fact checking the GOP talking points and then you will find out who is telling the lies. As far as this Marine goes he shouled be booted out, made to pay back his bonas and mabey he can get a job with the teaparty until they get through using him

[John Villalobos 777]

02:42 AM on 03/25/2012

Sorry I have no Drugs to cure What you Have

[BlueRevolution]

06:37 AM on 03/23/2012

If you had said this in March, 2003, at the beginning of the BUSH Administration's illlegal invasion of Iraq, you would have a lot more credibility. As it stands,only starting to whine once a Democrat is in the Oval Office makes the objection seem less objective and extremely supportive of only Republican foreign policies, specifically the neoconservative positions.