Marine court-martialed for refusing to remove Bible verse

[Captain Obvious]

From Faux (pronounced "fo") News

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html


A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”

The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”

Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk

She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.



http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1432664632493.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

[Private Pickle]

Lame.

[Peter1469]

I expect that there is more to the story. Soldiers are not court-martialed over a minor incident like this absent a pattern of behavior that spins up the chain of command.

It will be interesting to see what the appeals court says about it.

[Mac-7]

If she is told to remove the verse and she refuses that's a serious breech of discipline.

and based on what we know so far hooray for her.

but punishment is proper.

[Tahuyaman]

If she is told to remove the verse and she refuses that's a serious breech of discipline.

and based on what we know so far hooray for her.

but punishment is proper.

In my twenty years of military service, no commander I knew would give such an order. There's more to this than simply refusing to remove a Bible verse from a computer. If that's all it is, both the charge and punishment are completely improper.

[Mac-7]

In my twenty years of military service, no commander I knew would give such an order. There's more to this than simply refusing to remove a Bible verse from a computer. If that's all it is, both the charge and punishment are completely improper.

There may be more behind the scenes.

but what we know is what she was convicted of.

[Tahuyaman]

There has to be more to this.

[Guille]

In my twenty years of military service, no commander I knew would give such an order. There's more to this than simply refusing to remove a Bible verse from a computer. If that's all it is, both the charge and punishment are completely improper.

That's my thought too. The linked article mentions another incident months after the bible verse incident and mentions not being at her appointed duty station. It sounds to me like she tried to dodge some other issues by hiding behind a religious freedom argument.

[Tahuyaman]

It's possible that one thing led to another and her story is not the whole story.

[donttread]

Lame.

Put a poster up about this outside every Marine recruiting office

[Private Pickle]

Put a poster up about this outside every Marine recruiting office

Well before I go doing something like that I would want to know the rest of the story. It has been suggested that there is more here and I tend to agree.

[Lineman]

She refused a direct order.

In NAM in 1970, a staff seargent in supply told a Colonel he wasnt going to comply with an order, and he didn't last ten minutes before he was locked up, charges were filed, he then was sent to Cam Rahn Bay, court martialed, and sent to Leavenworth.

[southwest88]

I expect that there is more to the story. Soldiers are not court-martialed over a minor incident like this absent a pattern of behavior that spins up the chain of command.

It will be interesting to see what the appeals court says about it.

The Grio - a US Black website - carried the story. The comments are interesting - the 2nd one gives a lot of background to the charges. I don't know if an appeal is going forward - she defended herself, & the comments indicate a lot of issues. See http://thegrio.com/2015/05/27/marine-court-martialed-bible-verse/

For what it's worth.

[Peter1469]

The Grio - a US Black website - carried the story. The comments are interesting - the 2nd one gives a lot of background to the charges. I don't know if an appeal is going forward - she defended herself, & the comments indicate a lot of issues. See http://thegrio.com/2015/05/27/marine-court-martialed-bible-verse/

For what it's worth.

I still want to know if she was on her supervisor's shit list prior to this incident. The UCMJ is pretty comprehensive and can be applied strictly or loosely. If you are deemed to be a shit-bag by your command, it gets applied strictly. If you are a golden boy, it take a lot to get into trouble.

[Lineman]

There are three types of Federal courts-martial—summary, special, and general. A conviction at a general court-martial is equivalent to a civilian conviction in a federal district court. Special courts-martial are considered "federal misdemeanor courts" because they cannot impose confinement longer than one year. Summary courts-martial have no civilian equivalent.

[southwest88]

I still want to know if she was on her supervisor's $#@! list prior to this incident. The UCMJ is pretty comprehensive and can be applied strictly or loosely. If you are deemed to be a $#@!-bag by your command, it gets applied strictly. If you are a golden boy, it take a lot to get into trouble. I can't tell. The comments by Marcus (?) @ the URL above indicate he had access to the court-martial transcripts, & talked to some of her fellow grunts.

He says there were a lot of issues - I haven't tried to track down the transcripts. I'll wait for someone more ambitious to post them - that's assuming that they're public documents, which I tend to doubt.

Maybe they'll be summarized somewhere?

[magicmike]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1111016]I still want to know if she was on her supervisor's $#@! list prior to this incident. The UCMJ is pretty comprehensive and can be applied strictly or loosely. If you are deemed to be a $#@!-bag by your command, it gets applied strictly. If you are a golden boy, it take a lot to get into trouble.[/QUOTI
read in the Grip story that it was a "small verse".

It was 23pts and visible to anyone.

She violated the UCMJ. Period. If she hasn't pushed it she would have gotten reprimanded.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1111016]I still want to know if she was on her supervisor's $#@! list prior to this incident. The UCMJ is pretty comprehensive and can be applied strictly or loosely. If you are deemed to be a $#@!-bag by your command, it gets applied strictly. If you are a golden boy, it take a lot to get into trouble.[/QUOTI
read in the Grip story that it was a "small verse".

It was 23pts and visible to anyone.

She violated the UCMJ. Period. If she hasn't pushed it she would have gotten reprimanded. That doesn't address my point. I suspect she was a known shit-bird in her unit.

[magicmike]

[QUOTE=magicmike;1111078] That doesn't address my point. I suspect she was a known $#@!-bird in her unit.

No doubt. Most holy rollers in and put of the military are at a minimum annoying.

Far worse than gay activists.

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1111118]

No doubt. Most holy rollers in and put of the military are at a minimum annoying.

Far worse than gay activists.

I didn't have to worry about gay activists when I was on active duty.

[magicmike]

[QUOTE=magicmike;1111136]

I didn't have to worry about gay activists when I was on active duty.

Why?

[Peter1469]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1111147]

Why?

When I came in, gays couldn't serve (if they came out). Then there was Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[Lineman]

Just like a company has a code of conduct, so does the military. She lost.

[Tahuyaman]

She refused a direct order.

Not true. First of all, a non commissioned officer can not issue a direct order. Only commissioned officers can do that. A Staff Seargant told her to remove the bible verse. That is not a "direct order". It is a directive. An unlawful one to boot.

Second, soldiers are also required to not follow an unlawful order or directive no matter who issues it. Ordering, or directing a soldier to remove a bible verse from a computer screen is not lawful.

That's why I believe there is more to this story than what she is telling us.

[Tahuyaman]

Just like a company has a code of conduct, so does the military. She lost.

do you understand what the "code of conduct" is and when and where it is applied?

[Tahuyaman]

When I came in, gays couldn't serve (if they came out). Then there was Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Right. Then it went to being that one can be openly gay. I retired before they decided to make it mandatory.

[Cthulhu]

[QUOTE=magicmike;1111206]

When I came in, gays couldn't serve (if they came out). Then there was Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Well...that and "coming out" isn't the brightest maneuver in an infantry setting.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Tahuyaman]

[QUOTE=Peter1469;1111246]
Well...that and "coming out" isn't the brightest maneuver in an infantry setting.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.


I suspect that that the infantry is not a desired MOS for gay dudes.

[Mac-7]

Not true. First of all, a non commissioned officer can not issue a direct order. Only commissioned officers can do that. A Staff Seargant told her to remove the bible verse. That is not a "direct order". It is a directive.

An unlawful one to boot.



The military court does not agree with you.

[Cthulhu]

[QUOTE=Cthulhu;1111568]


I suspect that that the infantry is not a desired MOS for gay dudes.
A person can be as gay as a 3 dollar bill in the infantry with no problems - as long as you keep it below the radar.

Start talking with a lisp and broadcasting it is a surefire way to be the black sheep in am infantry setting.

In theory grunts are supposed to be more professional than that. Buy reality and theory have this way of being different.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Redrose]

In my twenty years of military service, no commander I knew would give such an order. There's more to this than simply refusing to remove a Bible verse from a computer. If that's all it is, both the charge and punishment are completely improper.


It probably wasn't over the Bible verse, it was most likely over insubordination, her attitude toward her superior officers.

[Tahuyaman]

The military court does not agree with you.

and once again, that's why I say there is more to this story than her story. What are you having such a problem accepting that?

[Tahuyaman]

A person can be as gay as a 3 dollar bill in the infantry with no problems - as long as you keep it below the radar.

I spent 20 years as an infantryman in infantry units. One could be gay as long as they didn't act like it, or let it slip that they were gay. If it did become evident, they had problems. In other words, one could not be as "gay as three dollar bill" and get along with his brothers in arms

[Mac-7]

and once again, that's why I say there is more to this story than her story. What are you having such a problem accepting that?

There is no secret testimony under the table where the prosecutor whispers in the judges ear.

They convicted her of the charges laid on the table not some other issue not included in the official record.

I see what you are driving at

But I'm confident that if she had removed the Bible verse as ordered, or accepted the Article 15 that I'm sure she was offered she would still be in the Marines.

[Tahuyaman]

There is no secret testimony under the table where the prosecutor whispers in the judges ear.

They convicted her of the charges laid on the table not some other issue not included in the official record.

I see what you are driving at

But I'm confident that if she had removed the Bible verse as ordered, or accepted the Article 15 that I'm sure she was offered she would still be in the Marines.


The only story you have heard is her story. The military is not going to publicize everything there is to know about this as it's none of our business. The UCMJ is not as transparent as the civilian criminal justice system. The military is not required to make their UCMJ issues public knowledge.

I think the bible verse issue is not a significant element of her charges. I believe it's something she is throwing out there trying to gain sympathy and roil up outrage.

[Peter1469]

The charge sheet is public. The trial is public.

[Cthulhu]

I spent 20 years as an infantryman in infantry units. One could be gay as long as they didn't act like it, or let it slip that they were gay. If it did become evident, they had problems. In other words, one could not be as "gay as three dollar bill" and get along with his brothers in arms
...I did say keep it below radar.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Tahuyaman]

...I did say keep it below radar.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.


Way below radar. So far below radar no one even suspected.

[Tahuyaman]

The charge sheet is public. The trial is public.

I guess we'll see just how public that is, won't we?

It's been my experience that a military court martial is as public as the military wants it to be.

[Peter1469]

I guess we'll see just how public that is, won't we?

It's been my experience that a military court martial is as public as the military wants it to be.

Well, most military court rooms don't have much space for spectators- at least the ones that I worked in. And they don't allow cameras or videos. Generally civilians not related to the relevant parties have zero interest in military courts-martial.