Wednesday, April 11, 2012

About SGT STEIN

OK, I keep getting messages about "Defending SGT STEIN" and after much and serious contemplation, I am compelled to offer the following.

The following express MY OPINIONS and my opinions only.  Those opinions are based on my lengthy and honorable service to this country in the United States Military AND that during that time, I was a Military Police Person, Military Police Investigator and Senior Investigator as well as the Assistant Operations Sergeant / Operations Sergeant for several Military Installations both in the US and abroad.  I AM HONORABLY retired.

In that NONE of us were ACTUALLY present at his hearing AND in that we only know what the media would like us to hear perhaps the voice of reason is needed.

Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is commonly referred to as "The General Article". 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/134.htm

The military uses this article when the specifics of other Articles do not exactly apply to an offense.  In every story that I have read, there is NO MENTION that the good Sergeant was charged or convicted of violating Article 92 of the UCMJ which is "Disobeying a Lawful Order". 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm

Please note that in the "Elements of Proof" this Article states that there must have been an order, that the order was lawful, that the person subject to the code knew the order existed and that he or she failed to obey it.  IF as some would have us believe, SGT Stein was dishonorably discharged because he failed to obey a lawful order, the military would have charged him with such, NOT used the General Article as they did.  Here are the "Elements of Proof" for Article 134 as listed in the UCMJ:

    (1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and

      (2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

    Stein was charged under 134 for acting in a manner that would be prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the military.".  That is it.  That is what he was "convicted of".

    In my humble opinion, it APPEARS as though the ACTUAL issue is not that Sgt Stein spoke his mind or even necessarily the jargon that he used to do so, but admittedly, some of what he said could have been charged "LOOSELY" under the military laws regarding disrespect to a commissioned officer - however in that the Commander in Chief is not actually Commissioned, even that becomes suspect.  What Stein SEEMS to have done is to have taken up the banner and initiated or advanced "The Military Tea Party".  Also note that he was not charged with "Sedition".  Sedition is chargeable under Article 94 of the UCMJ. 

    http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm94.htm

    (a) "Any person subject to this chapter who--

      (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
      (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

    We are all briefed during Basic Training / Boot Camp that although we can attend political rallies, we are prohibited from doing so in uniform.  YES, there are exceptions where the Military is asked to be present AND has granted dispensation for a color guard or for other reasons and we all know that every politician wants some photo op with men and women in uniform BUT what Stein SEEMS to have done was START or ADVANCE a political party or movement, and that he did so using his military service as a platform.

    Some in the media would have us believethat Stein stated he ould disobey an order b the Commander in Chief.  I believe what he said is that he would not follow an unlawful order order.  All in the services since the My Lei Masacre with Lt. Calley in Viet Nam are taught NOT to follow orders blindly but rather to obey LAWFUL orders.  Clearly the orders given at My Lei were illegal and those who followed them were punished.  See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley
    NOW WAIT - before you go throwing stones, I believe that Stein was used to advance an initiative at it is working.  I also believe that it is laughable that those who are sworn to "Protect the Constitution of The United States Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic", are not allowed the same protections it promises themselves.  An active duty military member does NOT have the right to Freedom of Speech even though they are expected to be willing to fight even unto death to defend our rights to the same. 

    TWO LAST POINTS OF ORDER -

    1)  Sgt Stein is set to ETS or End his Time in Service in July of this year.  That is three months from now.  Why wouldn't the Military Powers simply bar him from reenlisting? Well, what better way to quell a ground swell then to "Set an Example" of the good Sergeant?  The Military has been using peer pressure and setting examples for as long as they have been in business. 

    2)  Some media would have us believe that Stein will loose all of his V.A. benefits based on the OTH Discharge (Other Than Honorable).  I did a bit more research and found:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_discharge

    If one takes a minute to read the portions of this information as it applies to OTH Discharges it becomes clear that loss of V.A. Benefits is NOT a result of this type of action bu rather one that comes from a Bad Conduct Discharge. 

    What is the quote?  "THE ROOTS OF THE TREE OF FREEDOM MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS."

    THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

    Question authority AND the media.