Can military service members criticize former Presidents at any level?

2018-10-04T21:48:07-04:00

Thinking specifically of The Hatch Act, can military service members criticize former presidents at any level? This was brought up in an ROTC discussion about the Army Profession and Civilian-Military Relations.

Edit:
I was corrected on my use of the Hatch Act in this situation, it does necessarily apply (See below, "John Monette"). There are a few key parts to this question: "service members", "former", "any level". So more specifically, I suppose we are then referring to UCMJ, USC (United States Code), and the other policies in place restricting us from criticizing our leadership. To what extent does such apply to former presidents?

--------------------------------(NOTES BELOW THIS LINE)----------------------------------

Thank you to everyone for contributing; it's been wonderful to get so many voices with differing opinions in on the conversation. Such is what makes RallyPoint so great. Here are things I gathered from the conversation and from other readings I have looked into:

- BLUF:

Yes, but it depends. The key is to understand the difference between being critical and being contemptuous. None the less, a service member's legal right to free speech is upheld in this case.

- Start with the WHY:

People consistently respond to this question with "Why bother?" This response seems to come from differing opinions on history as a discipline and in part, a perspective on what democratic politics should consist of. Personally, I am frustrated by this response, but it certainly has value and requires attention. I greatly appreciate the push-back.

First, we must understand the potential difference between critiquing and criticizing. Criticism can have a negative connotation attached to it and this is not my intent. I am drawing from a democratic ideal of political liberty directly attached to historical studies, though certainly with my own goals in mind. I think we all have to agree that the "WHY" behind our actions is always at some level biased and perhaps driven by an agenda, but such is not always a bad thing. "Democracy gives us the right to disagree and is designed to use the energy of creative conflict to drive positive social change. Partisanship is not a problem. Demonizing the other side is." - Parker Palmer

Second, the keyword in this question is "former". We need to recognize the difference as changing "former" presidents to "current" presidents alters the conversation entirely. My question was and is a matter of legality/ethics. In the forum however it takes on various forms. Another way of phrasing it might be: "Can we ask hard questions of our former presidents and come up with potential answers to those questions while staying within the proper legal parameters as former/present military service members?"

Third, critique is beneficial. Such is obvious to us as this concept is used on privates in their formative beginnings, and well into our military careers. As citizens of a republic, there ought to be room for criticism of former leaders. Furthermore, when we conduct classes around historical battles and the people involved we also practice healthy criticism (hopefully within proper historicism). An example I often use involves our country's history on foreign policy. I believe valuable political, social, and cultural discussions can be had around President Wilson and his part in publicizing the ideology behind "every nation has a right to self-determination". There are legitimate criticisms about this that ought to be discussed by us as citizens, especially considering the importance of our ability to vote.

- Big Picture:

In 1958 Congress passed the Former Presidents Act. This gave a departing president an annual pension of $25,000 per year. It is now just over $200,000 per year. As well, funding is available for the ex-president to furnish an office and staff for a little over four years. Other than this, former presidents no longer have any status in the government.

Furthermore, the 22nd and 12th amendments give limits that we interpret as serving no more than two terms as President, and possibly a third term as vice president, though such is a contested issue among constitutional scholars. There is no other legislation in place to limit a former president's future work in government roles. Thus, former presidents may at some point re-enter the chain of command or federal service.

This is where the Hatch Act comes into play. Military reservists or Guardsmen who also work as federal government civilians are subject to the Hatch Act as well as UCMJ. Members of the active-serving armed forces however are subject to Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, which is similar in policy to The Hatch Act but holds different legal ramifications.

Example:

John Quincy Adams elected into the House of Representatives in 1830, serving until 1848.

William Howard Taft selected to the Supreme Court in 1921, serving to 1930.

- Political Science:

As a republic we have offices of service rather than positions of nobility. The difference being that our offices of service are not personal endowments of rank, meaning we do not identify the person and their position as synonymous for the rest of their life. Thus, we should understand the Presidency as a role more so than a rank. When someone no longer occupies their government office they resume ordinary citizenship status, to include presidents.

This is somewhat different than what we experience in the military. A retired Army Captain may be referred to by their rank. Their retirement earns them certain customs and courtesies in society and in the military according to official policies that define personnel as retired. However, a former president is no longer referred to as Mr. or Mrs. President and most every courtesy given to them is traditional rather than a strict regulation or law.

- Legal Details:

As Christopher Thompson pointed out, service members cannot be persecuted under the Hatch Act, UCMJ Article 2 (for active duty and retired service members), or United States Code Title 18, Section 871.

DoD Directive 1344.10 reads:

"Commissioned officers shall not use contemptuous words as prohibited by section... Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive." This seems to support the BLUF as stated above. However, as others have stated, especially William Bentley, DoD ethics regulations can cover a lot of different situations. There is a lot of room for interpretation and legally, any sort of negative conduct could be subject to UCMJ, especially in light of Article 134 which covers good order and discipline.

- Takeaway:

Reading over Article 88 of the UCMJ seems to infer that only current presidents are of any legal concern to military personnel. Though former presidents have legally exited the office and thus the chain of command, morally we understand the ethical obligations of military service and give the proper respect when speaking of former presidents and their work irregardless of our personal political beliefs.

Likewise, we ought to remember the legacy of the presidential office and our profession. Presidents carry an important current of policy from one generation to the next; criticism of their actions do not take place within a vacuum. As the gentleman below writes "you may find yourself not only criticizing the former but the current in the same breath." (Aaron Kennedy) You might call this intellectual hospitality, meaning, that as we engage with the ideas of former presidents we remain humble and fair in our analysis.

***This could all be tied into the Army's current work on redefining Army professionalism which implies a lifelong obligation to represent the Army Ethic and the U.S. military profession (as seen in recent revisions to ADP 1-0).

Response by SrA John Monette made Oct 4 at 2018 9:50 PM

2018-10-04T21:50:06-04:00

former and current. Hatch Act only applies if you are a current federal employee and does not apply to criticizing elected officials. it has to do with participating in political activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

Hatch Act of 1939 - Wikipedia

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity. It went into law on August 2, 1939. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was...

Response by SSG Brian G. made Oct 4 at 2018 9:51 PM

2018-10-04T21:51:22-04:00

Hatch act does not apply to former Presidents. The moment they leave that office they are simply public figure United States Citizens with a protection detail and that is all. They hold no rank or authority over any part of the US government and that includes service men & women.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Oct 4 at 2018 10:04 PM

2018-10-04T22:04:50-04:00

If you are on active duty, discretion is the better part of valor. That is be very careful about what you say. Once you leave the service by separation or retirement, the situation is different. Then you are just like any other citizen; feel free to speak your piece.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Oct 4 at 2018 10:15 PM

2018-10-04T22:15:03-04:00

1LT Private RallyPoint Member: I don't think it is appropriate; to criticize former Presidents- on Rally Point....Or on any public forum.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 4 at 2018 10:21 PM

2018-10-04T22:21:21-04:00

This is a touchy subject. While there may or may not be ‘hard regs’ to state one way or the other, always ask yourself ‘is this professional’? As long as you can say yes to it, do what your collar or wallet can afford. You are entitled to free speech. You’re also entitled to the after effects of free speech. Talking about a President is different than talking ABOUT a President if you feel what I’m sayin.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 4 at 2018 10:25 PM

2018-10-04T22:25:38-04:00

A former official is fair game, nothing in the UCMJ or Hatch Act against that.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 4 at 2018 10:34 PM

2018-10-04T22:34:39-04:00

What a fascinating question. You should get some sort of prize for this one. Sure, it is flawed. The Hatch Act doesn't really apply (as others have already explained more than adequately). What follows is purely opinion. Please do not act on it without checking with competent authority. It appears that any such prohibition is dependent upon your status. For example in Article 88 of the UCMJ: Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct". Without researching this too deeply, I suspect that enlisted personnel would be precluded under some provision relating to insubordination. However, whatever your status, that would apply only to a sitting President. Past Presidents have no standing in the chain of command. Thus, I would infer that an criticism of a past President would not be punishable.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Oct 4 at 2018 10:40 PM

2018-10-04T22:40:24-04:00

1LT Private RallyPoint Member Why would you bother critizing a departed official? Whatever damage they may have wrought cannot be undone by them? They can no longer be held accountable. Do you actually believe they would read care about any letter critizing their actions in office? Would you expect a response to your letter of condemmation? sp

Are you a registered, informed voter who regularly votes?

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2018 10:42 PM

2018-10-04T22:42:55-04:00

Well looks like thousand of federal employees and active military members and some on this sight are in violation of that as we speak. They are posting and saying all kind of crap about current POTUS. I didn't like the other number 44, but never and I mean Never spoke ill of him and still for most part have not to this day.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 5 at 2018 12:37 AM

2018-10-05T00:37:08-04:00

Of course. FORMER Presidents are just civilians, with no more authority than your local janitor.

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made Oct 5 at 2018 12:51 AM

2018-10-05T00:51:18-04:00

Yes, but publicly not sitting ones - if you are in the military

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Oct 5 at 2018 6:06 AM

2018-10-05T06:06:03-04:00

Everybody seems to, just need to keep the critcizem clean.

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 5 at 2018 6:11 AM

2018-10-05T06:11:21-04:00

I am not JAG, however when working in the CG's office of 2nd MarDiv, I was on edges of a case involving a Captain who was charged with an article 88 violation, the Division JAG shut the case down. The following is the essence of what the JAG said .

There is a common belief that we cannot be critical of the President. That is untrue. We cannot be Contemptuous. Unfortunately, sometimes, particularly if political passion is running high, it is difficult to stay on the correct side of the line. Assume that anything directly related to the military is a high voltage third rail.

Perfectly legitimate to say "I think the President's policy on underwater basket weaving does not address the following unintended consequences..."

Asking for trouble to say "The President's policy on underwater basket weaving is proof that he is a stupid, uneducated, jackass."

Former Presidents, unless they run for office again, and meet the elements spelled out in the UCMJ, are fair game.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 5 at 2018 7:42 AM

2018-10-05T07:42:53-04:00

Yes. However, it can be considered "bad form."

Just like criticizing a former CO is considered bad form. First off, he can't defend himself. Second, if you are willing to do that to him, you're willing to do it to the current CO as soon as he is out of earshot.

This is not to say you can't criticize, question, or disagree with policy decisions, but... tread carefully.

The current CO may agree 100% with what the previous had done, but has new information OR the situation has evolved requiring a change in plan, therefore you may find yourself not only criticizing the former but the current in the same breath.

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 5 at 2018 8:19 AM

2018-10-05T08:19:50-04:00

You are free to criticize all you want. Former officials aren't in your chain of command so I don't see any issues with it. You can even criticize a sitting one, but you must be careful about how, when, and where you do it since many military leaders lack a sense of humor. You are free to have policy disagreements and voice those so long as it isn't in the wrong time manner or place. Washington said it best "When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen". So you do have freedom of speech, it is just heavily regulated. So be careful if you do it so you don't cross any lines.

Response by LTC Stephan Porter made Oct 5 at 2018 8:36 AM

2018-10-05T08:36:54-04:00

Absolutely, they are no longer the CinC and that is the prohibition.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2018 8:47 AM

2018-10-05T08:47:12-04:00

There is nothing in the UCMJ that prohibits any military member from criticizing former presidents. Article 88 prohibits officers for the sitting president and others, as detailed in a previous post. Nothing prohibits the same from enlisted members.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 5 at 2018 9:27 AM

2018-10-05T09:27:57-04:00

If this is the case certainly there are many service members who’s outspoken criticisms of our current President Donald Trump are clearly disrespectful and in violation of the UCMJ. I have no love for politicians but regardless of my personal feelings I have always maintained professional public comments and respect for the Commander and Chief. Some people would do well to remember that UCMJ requires certain behavior.

Response by PO1 Don Gulizia made Oct 5 at 2018 9:32 AM

2018-10-05T09:32:51-04:00

Like most questions, the answer is...it depends. As an active duty soldier, you want to be careful how you "represent" the Army (officially/unofficially). In a classroom situation where you are discussing foreign policy, political science, etc, it is appropriate to criticize/support/discuss/debate previous administrations. (everyone knows not to disrespect current chain of command) That's what you are there to do. However, if you are in a creative writing class and go off on how Obama wasn't really American or W was an idiot, it makes you look foolish and if others know you are currently serving, brings discredit on our military.

Response by SFC Harry H. made Oct 5 at 2018 10:04 AM

2018-10-05T10:04:31-04:00

Sure, you can do anything you like. Just keep in mind there is always consequences to everything you do good or bad.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Oct 5 at 2018 12:41 PM

2018-10-05T12:41:39-04:00

While I will always Criticize anyone or anything I feel is wrong, its all in the delivery. If you have a crapfest meltdown and just lose it you may be in deep doo doo. There is a right way to demonstrate your disappointment and their is a wrong way. I am retired I can say many things and I know the reality of what it would take to call me back into uniform and prosecute me under the UCMJ. The cost would be prohibitive unless I did someone very stupid. I would never say or endorse any F-tard talking about hurting or assassinating a present or former POTUS. I am sure someone will test that magical phrase that wins you a date with Uncle Sam very soon.

Response by MSG Greg Kelly made Oct 5 at 2018 7:08 PM

2018-10-05T19:08:16-04:00

When it comes to POTUS especially if your talking trash you have to do what you think your rank and back side can handle. I would recommend not talking politics of any kind on duty or in uniform. I avoided it except with friends off duty or alone with no troops around.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2018 2:45 PM

2018-10-06T14:45:59-04:00

"The Hatch Act does not apply to actively serving uniformed members of the Uniformed services of the United States, although it does apply to Department of Defense civil servants, as well as Department of Homeland Security civil servants in direct support of the United States Coast Guard. Members of the U.S. Armed Forces are subject to Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 (DoDD 1344.10), Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, and the spirit and intent of that directive is effectively the same as that of the Hatch Act for Federal civil servants." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

Hatch Act of 1939 - Wikipedia

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Oct 7 at 2018 1:42 PM

2018-10-07T13:42:12-04:00

Thank you for the mention and share.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2018 4:34 PM

2018-10-07T16:34:05-04:00

No, military speech needs to be more limited and circumspect than that of civilians. Retired personnel of high rank should not be able to attack the military or command and use their rank as an passive or active endorsement of their position. If however they were to resign their commission, they would then be free to say whatever they wished. Of course if they still continued to reference their rank or career experience, they would be chargeable for a felony under (existing or new) USC.

Response by SPC Jesse Davis made Oct 9 at 2018 4:47 PM

2018-10-09T16:47:00-04:00

For some, this didn't really become a question until Obama. As if those types weren't already utterly transparent about their ideology.
As a matter of principle, you don't want to do this in public or while in uniform, though.

Response by LTC James McElreath made Oct 21 at 2018 11:22 PM

2018-10-21T23:22:47-04:00

It is always customary for past presidents to act on behalf of the president for special (Envoy)occasions ,events. This task to them by the president because his belief that they will act as the president would had he been at the event. That still doesn't accord them anything but as a courtesy of them being past presidents.

Now I would like a reading as to the officials placed in office or longevity, do they not have an obligation to obey the president beings he is in their chain of command. I do not understand why President Trump doesn't fire any of the disgruntled Democrats holding office. There should be no spying on him, being recording device or outward display of hatred toward him. They should also not speak out against what he has declared as his policies and or procedures. Then there is a person seated by the Democrats to find trash on the President. Why should he employed any longer as in over a year and a half he has not proved his worth. I am sick and tired of the President being ridiculed and berated by the sore losers that lost their bid for retention of their jobs or just plain lost their bid for the presidency.

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Oct 22 at 2018 6:46 AM

2018-10-22T06:46:11-04:00

Former presidents are no longer commander in chief, are no longer in the chain of command, and are private citizens. It is wholly appropriate to address their actions after they left office, especially if we had a POS like Obama.

Response by SGT Gregory Tibbs made Oct 22 at 2018 8:19 PM

2018-10-22T20:19:55-04:00

The President is the commander and chief which means service members are entitled to their opinions which is their right but they need to understand and accept any repercussions.

Response by PO2 Vince Walsh made Oct 23 at 2018 8:24 PM

2018-10-23T20:24:35-04:00

Thoughtful and well reasoned. As I understand it, a natural born citizen over 35 years of age, can legally hold the office of President for a total of 10 years. A vice president who gains the office while 2 years or less remain of the incumbent's term, can serve those 2 years and then be elected up to, but not more than twice in his own right. If 2 years and one day or more remain in the incumbent's term, the vice president serves the remaining balance, he is however limited to one term in his own right. The vice president must be fully qualified at the time of his taking that office, to assume the office of President. Also, "irregardless" is not a word.

Response by SSG Lee Kujawa made Nov 4 at 2018 11:10 PM

2018-11-04T23:10:04-05:00

Absolutely not. The President is the Commander in Chief. There’s enough disrespect of elected federal politicians going on in the civilian world. The military must be different.

Response by CPT Mike Sims made Nov 6 at 2018 9:36 AM

2018-11-06T09:36:42-05:00

Past presidents are no longer in title as Commander-in-Chief... so by all means reflect on their past leadership decisions and speak freely to their successes or failures. Just remember, anything you post on the internet is forever - so your views and opinions and the words you choose at 21 years of age are certainly not what you might would say at 45 years of age. Therefore, do not let your 45 year old self someday be judged by what you said at 21!

Response by CW4 Leonard Glasser made Nov 24 at 2018 7:14 AM

2018-11-24T07:14:04-05:00

It would be inappropriate of me to say anything unappropriated about the misappropriate behavior of the Commander in Chief, past or present.

Response by CPT Earl George made Dec 6 at 2018 9:07 AM

2018-12-06T09:07:17-05:00

Just my $.02. It is a good idea not to step on the toes today of the ass you may may to kiss tomorrow. Doing what is mentioned above could come back to haunt you or someone close to you.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2018 5:07 AM

2018-12-25T05:07:14-05:00

Robert Smith; GySgt USMC Retired
Former Presidents are exactly that - FORMER!! I respect the Office he once held. After leaving office, he’s a civilian.. If he did his job defending the Constitution The Bill of Rights and the United States of America I will honour and standby him. If not, he’s just another A**hole like the last traitor who held office and spent 8 years tearing the Country apart. Any person who violates their oath of office should be removed from said office and not be allowed to run for office again, EVER...

Response by SSG Dale London made Jan 26 at 2019 9:48 PM

2019-01-26T21:48:42-05:00

The common sense approach to this question says: It is impossible to be insubordinate towards someone who is not your superior. Former Presidents, however revered they may be by the media, have no role or standing with the military. They have no authority or power under the law as they have relinquished the office that conferred it.
The same applies to retired officers. They may still use the rank as a mode of address but they cannot issue orders or wield command authority.
Criticizing former presidents, while it may be rude, is not illegal.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2019 3:25 PM

2019-01-27T15:25:52-05:00

Remember that our sworn loyalty is to the United States constitution and never to a single person or persons. Former presidents have no standing under UCMJ. And remember they, and members of Congress, are elected servants, not leaders. Only in the role of commander in chief is a president the constitutional leader of the military.

Response by TSgt James Warfield made Jan 29 at 2019 10:13 PM

2019-01-29T22:13:08-05:00

It has been very interesting reading of many of the post. I am a retired NCO. I actually don't ever remember hearing or being told I could not express my political opinion or take part in any march as long as I was not in uniform and spoke as representing the military. However things may have changed. I retired in 94.
However I want to add, some of these post scares me, when it says follow all orders of those above you. When I was in I declared an oath to my Country and to the Constitution not a president or a higher ranking official. I agree that orders should be followed 98% with out question. However my leaders knew full well that I would never follow an order that went against the constitution of the US. Not sure what is being taught now, but in all my leadership schools civics and was taught and many times the discussion came up about un-lawfull orders. Now days many Americans only feel safe about the divisiveness this country's political scene is because their hope and faith lies in the our military to protect against our government going rouge and following un-lawful orders to detain and disarm US citizens. I mean with FISA now that our very own government feels it's legally ( because of the Homeland Security Act ) to arrest detain a citizen with out due open public process of law is scary.

That either side conservatives or progressives could use the military to stifle free speech and the rights of any American. Just 20 years ago I would never think that possible, now it's a very real and scary thought.
Just my thoughts, wish I could have stating them more clearer.

Response by SFC George Simons made Jan 31 at 2019 11:56 AM

2019-01-31T11:56:10-05:00

If paragraph1is considered correct why does every especially the media refer to ex-Presidents as President?

Response by SGT Charles Hanson made Feb 1 at 2019 2:45 PM

2019-02-01T14:45:38-05:00

You're fighting to preserve the freedom of speech. No one should be exempt from exercising that right, civilian or military. You must follow (legal) orders, but you don't have to like it.

Response by William Davis made Feb 1 at 2019 5:30 PM

2019-02-01T17:30:15-05:00

No public figure is beyond reproach.

Response by William Davis made Feb 1 at 2019 5:31 PM

2019-02-01T17:31:17-05:00

No public serving official is beyond reproach, you just can not do it while active duty

Response by CAPT Alan Hollingsworth made Feb 1 at 2019 8:14 PM

2019-02-01T20:14:37-05:00

Very interesting question. I don't know why it just popped in my email 4 months later. In my Navy Reserve unit during the drill weekend Feb 2001, the 1st drill weekend after George W. Bush was inaugurated, during the initial meeting Saturday morning the heads of the staff branches were going around the room giving updates to kick off the weekend. The unit's JAG officer launched into a typically lawyerly jargon-filled announcement to the effect that regulations (which he cited) "prohibit members of the armed services disparaging elected officials, including the president. It should be understood however that this prohibition does not apply to former elected officials." And he just stopped right there. Everyone was quiet waiting for him to continue. Half of us had been kind of nodding along in assent with what he was saying, half had zoned out due to the lawyerly jargon and his flat delivery. After several seconds passed we all began to realize he wasn't going to start talking again, and over the next several seconds people started processing the last words he had said, and finally a wave of chuckles and then guffaws began erupting across the room and the JAG finally cracked a smile. The next few minutes we started saying all the things everyone had been thinking about Bill Clinton for the preceding 8 years. Dirtbag, sleaze, sexual predator, rapist, narcissist, worse Commander-in-Chief than Jimmy Carter, etc. What a relief it was to openly say what everyone couldn't say all those years!

Then someone mentioned that the chain of command photo board had not been updated yet in the lobby, and they found out the new photos had arrived in the admin office. So we fell in formation and marched through the building to the admin office, obtained the new photos, marched to the lobby, and ceremoniously took down the photos of Clinton and his appointees and replaced them with GW Bush and his appointees, and paraded back to our space. We drew straws to see who got to take the photo of Clinton home, then swapped ideas of what to do with it, with dart board being most popular suggestion. I was mobilized before the next drill weekend so I never heard the fate of the photo.

Bottom line, from a professional lawyer and JAG I learned that there is no protection from ridicule or other pontificating regarding former civilian officials.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Feb 3 at 2019 11:51 AM

2019-02-03T11:51:03-05:00

A servicemember can criticize former presidents as long as it’s done constructively and you’re expressing views that are your own and not the organization. As military, active, reserve or veteran, we respect the title of former presidents like we do with the current but as Americans we have the right to an opinion. For example one can disagree with actions of Bush or Obama but one shouldn’t publicly call Bush a moron or refer to Obama as Obummer as I’ve witnessed myself in discussions.

Response by LTC James McElreath made Feb 18 at 2019 2:17 AM

2019-02-18T02:17:38-05:00

The best action to take if one is on duty is no action. Some regulations are subject to interpretation and or who and how they are used against someone. To stay out of the fray, save your thoughts for the vote. But stick up for your commander and chief against all people doing their best to slander the office of the President! Lets face it he was the best person to attempt to straighten the gov. mess!

Response by SPC James Jackson made Feb 27 at 2019 1:37 PM

2019-02-27T13:37:34-05:00

Being that this is a touchy subject that is covered under the UCMJ more than anything else, the supreme court has recently upheld that retirees can be held to account under the UCMJ. Retirees and those that have been discharged are two separate groups whereas one still receives monies from the government but the latter does not. From all that I have read on the subject, retired service members are in some respect considered to be still employed by the military as IRR (in some cases) as to this is the reason that they still receive entitlements afterwards. As in the case of the retired Marine recently in Japan who was charged and convicted of sexual assault under the UCMJ. Maj. Gen Charles Dunlap Jr. recently said that retirees are not forced to collect retirement pay, but instead choose to keep a relationship with the military. Larrabee, in particular, was still a member of Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. “The latter provision is especially important because there is no dispute that Larrabee was a member of it,” Dunlap said. “Moreover, as explained by the Solicitor General, Larrabee could have requested discharge in lieu of transfer to Fleet Marine Corps Reserve if he had wanted to do so."

"If he had, he would have avoided potential court-martial jurisdiction, but doing so would have also ended his entitlement to retired pay.” The Supreme Court agreed with him.
Just keep in mind something my drill sgt once told me.. ".. think of the military as the mob per se, once you're in, you're never out.."

Response by 1SG Jeffrey Mullett made Feb 28 at 2019 8:36 PM

2019-02-28T20:36:38-05:00

This has been a significant subject of discussion since Obama left office. Of course there were a lot of uniform personnel who openly criticized and made ridiculous claims and accusations against him while he was still in office. It is ironic NOW that many of the same people are pretending that Trump is getting unfair treatment, and in no way did anyone EVER treat Obama that way...
I digress, I was not a fan of George W. Bush, but I kept my opinions to myself, unless I was away from my office or in civilian discussion (out of uniform). Once he left office, there was no constraint. The Hatch act and UCMJ do not limit your opinion regarding past presidents. Uniform members and DoD Civilians are free to say what they want since he/or she, is no longer Commander in Chief.

Response by PO3 Adam Stoflet made Mar 2 at 2019 10:42 AM

2019-03-02T10:42:58-05:00

It’s a very fine line but I would say it all about how you go about it. You should be fine pointing out the flaws of a plan things like safety concerns, but at the same time you should give out options to improve up or fix those mistakes. Those suggestions also should be put in a constructive way as well that do not disrespect or undermine the presidents authority.

Response by 1LT Kurt Mccarthy made Mar 2 at 2019 1:46 PM

2019-03-02T13:46:44-05:00

They aren't the POTUS anymore.... However, my own opinion when serving is to keep politics out of the game entirely. It's fine to your battle buddy when you aren't at work and you know you share the same ideologies. I'd still leave it at home... I couldn't stand what went on with budget cuts and force reduction im 2012-2016. The Army was hit very hard and it was probably one of the worst times to serve in the U.S Army. However, I kept my mouth shut until I got out. Once you get out, you tend to make up for it anyway. As many of us are passionate about upholding our oath even after service. Many of us vets like to exercise our 1st Amendment right.

Response by SPC Carmen Ramirez made Mar 2 at 2019 5:15 PM

2019-03-02T17:15:47-05:00

I believe we should stick to the regulations. Committing insubordination by way of violating that reg is still punishable under UCMJ. I say keep it to yourself. and follow your fourth general order. Do as your told, do as your told, damnit private do as your told.

Response by CW3 Dick McManus made Mar 20 at 2019 3:58 PM

2019-03-20T15:58:43-04:00

Go to the local Democratic, Republican, or etc. monthly meetings in the nearby civilian city or County where you are assigned, but not in uniform. That way, you learn more about the issues and can voice you opinion. Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a new law which will allow the punishment of individuals and online media for spreading what Russia calls "fake news" and information which "disrespects" the state. The new rules allow prosecutors to direct complaints about material considered insulting to Russian officials to the government, which can then block websites publishing the information. Publications that repeatedly spread "unreliable" information which undermines social order, may face fines of up to $23,000, and repeat offenders could spend time in jail, according to The Washington Post. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/704600310/russia-criminalizes-the-spread-of-online-news-which-disrespects-the-government?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190318&fbclid=IwAR1C2hmxMI6wbJlHFAmAZOhsgcj4yKLzhSEYBwMt8QKQZuR_M0deBIjEdHk

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Smashes CNN’s Pro War Horribleness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZSGZINjvbs

Here is a very good video of a speech by David Slesinger where he discusses anti-fascism as a short coming of the 9/11 Truther membership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmLgcuXkFV8

Richard McManus for Snohomish County Sheriff
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 41998/

Richard McManus
Chief Warrant Officer-3/counterintelligence special agent (more like an FBI agent than CIA officer) and combat paramedic/LPN, Vietnam US Army retired, former 911 telephone guy for the Seattle PD and King County cop
BS psychology and nursing
Everett, WA

Russia Criminalizes The Spread Of Online News Which 'Disrespects' The Government

President Vladimir Putin signed the new law, which allows punishment of individuals with fines and jail time for the spread of "fake news."

Response by SSgt Richard Kensinger made Mar 28 at 2019 2:26 PM

2019-03-28T14:26:54-04:00

Nixon was the C-in-C during my active duty during the Vietnam Conflict. I never criticized him openly. About a year ago I read H. R. Mcmasters "Dereliction of Duty and discovered that we were betrayed by 5 of them. We lost over 58,000 soldiers and more civilians were killed than combatants on both sides! I distrust the current C-in-C. He is using our military for his own personal ambitions. And he got 5 deferments and avoided Nam!! I joined the AF after I graduated from college.
Pertinent topic,
Rich

Response by SPC Ron Salsbury made Mar 29 at 2019 5:23 PM

2019-03-29T17:23:36-04:00

The Hatch Act applies to those employed under the Executive Branch only, any individual who is no longer in office is not considered as covered by said ruling, thus making them eligible for anyone's opinion based upon their 1st Amendment right. However as stated by others, the UCMJ could possibly be used and interpreted by any individual at JAG or Command as a means of corrective action. Two discussion points made by other entries on this post bear serious consideration; one do not identify yourself when asked of your opinion so as not to embarrass your Branch. Two, definitely consider Lt. Col. Browns recommendations of discretion, sometimes thinking before you speak will pay dividends in the long run, especially if you suspect a set up.

Response by MAJ Christopher Thompson made Mar 29 at 2019 9:24 PM

2019-03-29T21:24:26-04:00

Former POTUS are classified as US citizens, not government employees, and service members cannot be persecuted under the Hatch Act, UCMJ Article 2 (for active duty and retired service members), or United States Code Title 18, Section 871.

Response by SSG Shawn Mcfadden made Mar 31 at 2019 12:36 PM

2019-03-31T12:36:43-04:00

Great question. I look at it this way, Former President Clinton was Impeached. Nixon was Forced to resign because of the Watergate Affair. Carter was given a bad rap for his handling of the Iran Hostage crisis. Events like these happened, and are part of the Country's HISTORY. They are FORMER Presidents, and are NO LONGER the Commander in Chief. When I was in the Army, I NEVER criticized W. Bush for his handling of the Iraq War. I even tried to defend him until the truth was revealed in 2006. I was still wearing the Uniform then. After I retired, I criticized him as well.

Response by PO1 Richard Norton made Mar 31 at 2019 3:03 PM

2019-03-31T15:03:19-04:00

As for knocking former or even current politicians, what you do out of uniform on your time is your business. What you do in uniform on government time can get you in trouble.

Response by CPO Charles Helms made Mar 31 at 2019 7:38 PM

2019-03-31T19:38:46-04:00

It's just like saluting a superior, you're saluting the uniform not the person wearing it!! I will always respect the Office of the President, but nothing says I have to like the person holding that office!! I obeyed all orders of the Presidents appointed over me even if I didn't always agree with what they were!! As a retired Chief Petty Officer with 22 year of active duty, I can now voice my opinions of those holding the office!!

Response by SGT Louise Hawthorne made Apr 1 at 2019 1:31 PM

2019-04-01T13:31:21-04:00

What it boils down to is using common sense. As private citizens, free speech rules. As Veterans, same rule as long as it's NOT inferred the opinions stated represent Veterans as a whole.
As a fellow Veteran and highly opinionated, many people have tried claiming that my voice applies to all. If you're in that situation, correct their headspace and timing ASAP.
Additionally, I NEVER voice opinions while in uniform or wearing a lapel pin that's not the American flag.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2019 7:51 PM

2019-04-04T19:51:34-04:00

1st Amendment... always look toward this and use it. If you want to trash Obama (for example); then go for it. If anyone gives you guff about it. Tell him it’s your birthright as an American citizen under the 1st Amendment. Just do not be disrespectful about it.
Heck if I wanted to discuss Andrew Jackson, that’s my right! Or am I wrong here?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2019 9:19 PM

2019-04-04T21:19:37-04:00

At the moment, I am not 100% familiar with the Hatch Act. Never criticize POTUS in Uniform and always state if in civilian attire that the view is own personal observations.

Response by Cpl David E. Jenkins Jr. made Apr 5 at 2019 2:26 PM

2019-04-05T14:26:27-04:00

Since when has this been a problem. In 77 I used to talk about Nixon all the time

Response by SSG Norbert Johnson made Apr 7 at 2019 3:05 PM

2019-04-07T15:05:56-04:00

You are prohibited to Criticize, but you can Critique and remain respectful to the Office.

Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. or as a verb: evaluate (a theory or practice) in a detailed and analytical way.

Criticize: indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.

You may not like who sits the chair but always respect the Office and you will be OK

Response by SPC Daniel Rankin made Apr 12 at 2019 6:17 PM

2019-04-12T18:17:42-04:00

I have seen recently that a lot of military were very critical of Obama and when ever he came on tv they would watch and laugh at what he said. because they knew like the indians would say he spoke with a forked tongue.

Response by MGySgt Joseph Magyar made Apr 16 at 2019 5:52 PM

2019-04-16T17:52:34-04:00

Correct off subject, I stand corrected

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Jun 23 at 2019 6:20 PM

2019-06-23T18:20:30-04:00

Is okay to criticize political leaders as long as you have made it clear is your personal opinion and not you as a soldier. Do Not run your mouth in uniform!!

Response by PO1 Jerome Newland made Jun 27 at 2019 2:03 PM

2019-06-27T14:03:59-04:00

Military ethics, regardless of whatever service, have grown into a sincere desire to do good. Not plagued with an overwhelming drug or alcohol issues like the 70's and 80''s. Sexual assaults are not as common as they were then either. This is because of imposed discipline, self discipline, and old fashioned pride in doing a necessary, and often painful, duty.
Please note a thumbs up to show the veterans and each other, that we support all our service members, where they have been, are going to, or coming back from. Jerome Newland HS1 USCG Ret. Philippines

Response by CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana made Sep 8 at 2019 1:04 PM

2019-09-08T13:04:26-04:00

The Constitution gives every citizen the legal right to free speech and freedom of expression. However, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the President. Sharing or spreading negativity about President can attract criticism or even punishment.

Response by PO1 Sean Reynolds made Sep 9 at 2019 11:40 AM

2019-09-09T11:40:42-04:00

Yes as long as it's not threatening to the life of a living President.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2019 3:19 PM

2019-09-10T15:19:00-04:00

Can military service members criticize former Presidents at any level? - the question I have is, why would it matter?
Doing so makes one look overly opinionated and a buffoon. Better to look like a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2019 3:36 PM

2019-09-10T15:36:48-04:00

But why?

A few people are curious as to why we bother to criticize former presidents at all. This question frustrates me. Academically, critique is not meant to be negative nor positive, thought it most assuredly can be. Nor is criticism meant to take place in a vacuum and become completely biased or imbalanced. There are hundreds of things to be achieved by using a method of critical examination in studying our history, especially our former presidents who were so influential on various policies and programs. The most basic answer is to learn something, there doesn't have to be any political agenda tied into this, nor does any amount of disrespect need to be associated with the word "criticize". After all, most criticism I have received in my career as a professional soldier has been for my own betterment. I don't believe we should have to explain to each other as fellow citizens why it is a good idea to reflect on and criticize our former leaders. This should be intuitive, as should be the ethical considerations going into the conversation. I hope everyone can see how this loops around. The situation regarding our duties as military service members only draws out this idea further. Further still, our own country was founded on healthy discussions of it's own leaders, or more precisely, former leaders.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Sep 10 at 2019 8:45 PM

2019-09-10T20:45:39-04:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner,…I agree with Capt. Jack Durish. The only perhaps an exception to what he is saying I believe that any living President should be extended the respect given to a serving President. …A separate issue but one that has always upset me a bit. Profanity is the language of the military, it has bee since the first United Staes war in 1898 The Quasi War where the sailors and Marines serving on the Frigate Constitution used. profanity that offended the ladies…A note thats not related to this question but I think makes a point. During WW II San Diego had a lot of German POE’s many from U Boat Crews. They were housed in the same types of wood barracks as we had at Ft. Polk in 1965. Whe I was a contractor I got the demo job to tear down and remove these buildings. In the rafter the Germans wrote and dre pictures of both Hitles and Roosevetl engaged in a then Homosexual act of one kind or another. I had brought these barracks to the attention of the Base Commander who agreed they had historical value and should be preserved, Local Congressman got wind of the graffittii and a bill was [assed by Congress that all such perverted material in former POW camps must be destroyed and no photographing of it. The only people alive who was and was amused by these artifacts are myself and my Mexican Crew who tore down the buildings.

Response by Sgt Dennis Gray made Sep 12 at 2019 4:58 PM

2019-09-12T16:58:42-04:00

Useful information, thank you. I recently watched an interview with General Mattis in which he indicated that while he still has a duty to his president and could not criticize him or his policies publicly, that this was only temporary and he might have some criticisms in the future. I took this to mean that when President Trump becomes citizen trump, the gloves come off and he can say what he likes. Of course as a matter of professionalism and general respect, I think that we as veterans and service members should set an example by treating our elected officials with the respect the office deserves while exercising our right to disagree.

Response by SSG Larry Donaldson made Sep 13 at 2019 2:40 PM

2019-09-13T14:40:48-04:00

I learned a very long time ago this. Do as you are ordered and bitch about it later. To openly and publicly criticize your superior officer, which the POTUS is about as high as you can get, you are subject to the US Military Code of Conduct. One must remember if there is a headhunter in the Chain of Command a charge can be made from anywhere pertaining to Conduct Unbecoming............ slander.......... defamation of character...... to even (under the legal definition)..assault! I have seen this happen concerning a battalion commander and a SFC. The result was an 1. investigation 2. Charges made 3. A court-martial 4. Reduction in rank one grade, forfeiture of pay for three months 5. a formal apology between the two verbally and in writing 6. a order to cease and desist all derogatory comments concerning the battalion commander. My opinion? The battalion commander was a total asshole, a political climber of rank (in other words a experienced kiss-ass, who couldn't lead a fire-team let alone a battalion, and total amazement he ever made it past 2nd Lt. My actions: Keep my mouth shut and unless I considered one of his orders to be illegal and dubious concerning the life of my platoon and me.............obey it and bitch later. One seems to forget that the Chain off Command works both ways. Also, any enlisted person can formally bring charges against any and all warrant and commissioned officers. As in 1 Lt Calley.

Response by SN Robbie Malone made Sep 15 at 2019 8:44 PM

2019-09-15T20:44:41-04:00

We have been criticizing presidents ,congressman, commanding officers for years, i am pretty sure George Washington was getting the evil eye as well. does it say in the regs or laws of the military service that we can't say anything about the President etc. The thing about us as human being we are emotional, we try to follow rules, we try to believe the person that is leading us is looking out for us and sometimes that is not the case. So what do we do bottle it or maybe write our feelings down just saying.

Response by LTC Ken Connolly made Sep 29 at 2019 10:23 PM

2019-09-29T22:23:05-04:00

As with many things in life, the answer is it depends. Also you should consider what image your are portraying by criticizing a former CINC.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2019 3:49 PM

2019-10-06T15:49:50-04:00

Former yes. They are no longer in the chain of command.

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Oct 6 at 2019 8:41 PM

2019-10-06T20:41:21-04:00

Context is key. It generally depends on how and what is said.

Majority of issues that have plagued Active Duty Service members is when they make public statements or actions against the sitting President.

Having an opinion is one thing but making a public statement on a public stage while also being Active Duty is something else altogether.

There are many examples of Military members getting into major hot water because they wanted to take a stand while also wearing their uniform and playing that role.

Response by 2LT Jeff Fortin made Oct 6 at 2019 10:30 PM

2019-10-06T22:30:57-04:00

We live in a society of freedom of speech, however while serving in the military there are limits of just how much criticism that can be said, some comments are welcome however since the President is in one's chain of command there are limits, and the UCMJ could reach out and burn one for such freedom of speech. Now basing the question on a former president, I would say the freedom of comments and criticism is a little free yet one needs to understand that such words, if outreach in a major venue could still hook one as a member of the military, needs to be free from distraction and brining undue attention or adverse comments towards a command, which under UCMJ could still affect ones freedom of speech. Just my thoughts. Kindly, Cheers. jeff

Response by 2LT Jeff Fortin made Oct 6 at 2019 10:31 PM

2019-10-06T22:31:08-04:00

Response by SSG Tom Montgomery made Oct 7 at 2019 2:25 AM

2019-10-07T02:25:00-04:00

This is a great question. I don't know the answer but should you? In my opinion you should keep anything you put in a public forum in good taste. You not only represent yourself, you also represent the entire military. What you do in private and gatherings with friends is entirely different. Speak your mind but use a little class

Response by CPT Philip Bailey made Oct 7 at 2019 8:53 PM

2019-10-07T20:53:45-04:00

Criticizing the current president undermines the chain-of-command. Former presidents are fair game, now you are critiquing history.

Response by SGT Eric Littlejohn made Oct 8 at 2019 11:32 AM

2019-10-08T11:32:00-04:00

As a Nam era NCO, I firmly believe that POTUS is only as good as those he hires to advise him. The McNamara policies we were stuck with really increased the "disrespect" we had with President Johnson. The idea of spending so many lives to take a "strategic" hill and then abandon it days later only fed the discontent. In my opinion, , if we decide to use the military to “fix” a problem, by God let the military do our jobs.. Sure we’re going to wreak havoc and perhaps destroy a lot of real estate but that’s what you .hired (conscripted) us to do. Once you release “the dogs of war”, stand back and let us do what we do best. After we complete our assignment, then the non military folks have their jobs to do, the job of peace.

Response by CMSgt Lloyd French made Oct 8 at 2019 12:41 PM

2019-10-08T12:41:39-04:00

You are protected by 1st Amendment rights first and foremost, but of equal importance are these questions you should ask yourself:

1) What do you want to achieve via criticism of the past or the POTUS at the time?
2) You will at some point in your future take an oath to obey POTUS orders?
3) Are you going to question orders of all your superiors?
4) Do you question your commitment to the tenets of military service and patriotism?

Do the right thing. Stand on your integrity. Defend the country to which I devoted 30 years of service.

Response by SGM Ronald Cheatom made Oct 8 at 2019 12:55 PM

2019-10-08T12:55:14-04:00

I was always taught, to support the Commander In Chief, meaning President. There have been points, in my life, when I disagreed with a decision, or the over all politics, of some Presidents. However, for me to criticize what they say, or do, just seems disrespectful, to all that I was taught. Respect the rank, and if they fail, vote them out.

Response by PO3 Michael MacKay made Oct 8 at 2019 2:08 PM

2019-10-08T14:08:39-04:00

Only in uniform on active duty are we not allowed to criticize and or make disparaging remarks about the president, I am not sure if that extends to former presidents.

Response by SSG Shawn Mcfadden made Oct 9 at 2019 12:09 PM

2019-10-09T12:09:34-04:00

For starters, the Hatch Act DOES NOT APPLY! THAT is something very different. As for FORMER Presidents go, they are NO LONGER in the Chain of Command, they NO LONGER hold the OFFICE, so making comments about what they have done WHILE in office should not be seen as an act of disrespect, or contempt. The actions of Former Presidents, good or bad, would be viewed from a historical aspect.

Response by SSG Bobby Richardson made Oct 9 at 2019 10:55 PM

2019-10-09T22:55:09-04:00

Yes. Since ex-officio Presidents are no longer in the chain of command, issues of insubordination or political speech would no longer apply. Plus, constitutionally-guaranteed Free Speech does apply.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2019 7:51 AM

2019-10-10T07:51:23-04:00

Absolutely we can! We are not permitted to be contemptuous, but that does not mean we require silence. For instance:

Acceptable: "I disagree with President Smith's decision to push the Avengers to sign the Sokovia Accords."

Unacceptable: "Fuck President Smith and his Sokovia Accords. I hope Cap rams his shield up that fucker's ass!!!!"

Response by SFC Luis Serrano made Oct 11 at 2019 8:27 AM

2019-10-11T08:27:31-04:00

Regulation or not, it's unwise to talk about your current boss in a way that would jeopardize a larger purpose. Ex-boss, that's another story.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2019 1:46 AM

2019-10-12T01:46:05-04:00

Not the Hatch Act.
Officers = no go.

Response by SSG George Duncan made Oct 12 at 2019 8:39 PM

2019-10-12T20:39:58-04:00

quit worrying. be your self,do your best

Response by PV2 Duane Schlender made Oct 14 at 2019 4:43 PM

2019-10-14T16:43:39-04:00

Having not read the entirety of your post...

Allow me to point something out. When someone joins the military, they take the 10 u.s.c. sec. 502 military oath. This means, you swear an oath to the constitution and to FOLLOW ORDERS of specific person's. NO WHERE does the oath say you swear to a specific person. Therefore, you are a military/police arm of the constitution.

However, common sense, wisdom, and intellect say that anything in this world is up for interpretation of any one person regardless of who they are. Interpretation is colored by morals, upbringing, the "deadly sins", religion, and pretty much any and everything.

Combining these things, it is MY opinion that one should be careful of any critique of those in a position of "power". I personally believe our government is nothing but individuals who only care about greed, press coverage, and promotion and NOTHING else. However, many would strongly disagree with me and point out the flaws in my thinking. The question above is no different.

I would say that it is not "criminal" to have opinions, or to point out facts in a critique fashion, however, one should have the wisdom and tact enough to understand any who they voice such opinions, facts, etc discussions with.

Response by Sgt Arlin Hill made Oct 16 at 2019 11:30 AM

2019-10-16T11:30:43-04:00

Yes, within reason. We all gripe about one thing or another. But when you start making violent threats-that's another thing entirely. THAT is a definite no-no.

Response by MSgt Jim Pollock made Oct 16 at 2019 2:56 PM

2019-10-16T14:56:35-04:00

That's a long opinion. Take it to a real world scenario and it isn't difficult: publicly criticizing your current commander while active duty would be a dumb move. Once out or retired, that commander has no authority over you. Simple.

Response by GySgt Jim Hart made Oct 17 at 2019 9:23 AM

2019-10-17T09:23:47-04:00

Former Presidents are no longer the Commander in Chief so they are no longer in the the line of our leadership. Our oath applies to the one in office.

Response by SSG Jerry Pannell made Nov 10 at 2019 8:42 PM

2019-11-10T20:42:51-05:00

I would say no i would say its disrespectful to the commander an chief

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2019 4:16 AM

2019-11-11T04:16:18-05:00

As an Air Force member I would caution against using the term "Army Policy" when you are referring to service members and should therefore have used "DOD or service policy". It comes across as really obtuse to assume that "Army policy" has any relevance to readers who may be Sailors, Airmen or Marines.

Response by MSgt Joseph Holness made Nov 11 at 2019 10:45 AM

2019-11-11T10:45:19-05:00

I don't see why not; considering that comedians, politicians, professors / educators, students, judges, entertainers, actors, athletes and business companies & organizations criticize and aggressively ridicule former and current presidents on an hourly basis. When you live in a society & culture like this one that promotes and condones from an early age playing the victim, disrespect, the banning of morals, responsibility, accountability and patriotism then what do you expect?

Response by CPL Juan Lugo-Santiago made Nov 11 at 2019 3:59 PM

2019-11-11T15:59:19-05:00

Sure we can. But when he says jump , you jump.

Response by MAJ Montgomery Granger made Nov 12 at 2019 5:59 AM

2019-11-12T05:59:21-05:00

Any commander can accuse a subordinate of conduct unbecoming. I would imagine this would go for former Presidents as well as anyone, really, based on the actions of the military member. Military members who retire may still be liable under the UCMJ for their actions. Loyalty is the first Army Value, and there is no expiration date on our oaths. Those who are not retirees but simply veterans may also be on the hook, as there are benefits afforded those who served honorably, therefore a fiduciary connection. In the end, I believe the degree and impact of a disrespectful act would need to rise to a level deserving of correction in the judgement of those in positions of responsibility. Being in the military requires special self control and dedication to duty, which means conducting ones self in a respectful manner. The commander of my AIT unit, CPT Bakari R. Akhil, used to tell us: "Soldier 24 hours a day."

Response by MAJ Rj M made Nov 12 at 2019 8:58 AM

2019-11-12T08:58:38-05:00

It depends on context. Obviously if you're discussing say strategy or looking at an incident in hindsight, say for example, FDR's unwillingness to remove MacArthur and the meaningless deaths it caused...or the fact that social security taxes were collected for two years prior to being distributed....etc.....its other thing while in uniform to call Obama--dumbo married to a ghetto ho.....

Response by COL Jim Lincoln made Nov 13 at 2019 11:10 AM

2019-11-13T11:10:06-05:00

that was exactly what LtCol Vindman did-in uniform in a public Congressional hearing.(but it was the current President!) He actually violated UCMJ article 88,which says military members,while in uniform in public cannot criticize the President,VP and other senior officials.
but he will not be charged-too political

Response by CPT (Ret)Bryon Scott Milam made Nov 13 at 2019 6:23 PM

2019-11-13T18:23:24-05:00

I bit my tongue for 8 years under BHO. I saw clear division amongst the ranks. My biggest issues now is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of todays media. BHO had 95% positive stories about his failed and scandal filled tenure just the opposite for DJT, but their approval is about the same, the division was not created under DJT but started 11 years ago and continues today. I have not seen soldiers openly be critical of DJT, but we seem to be at the point to be afraid to support him because that automatically criticizes BHO.

Response by CPT Herb Vest made Nov 13 at 2019 10:24 PM

2019-11-13T22:24:12-05:00

The act should be amended to include any partisan--either positive or negative--should be prohibited.

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Nov 14 at 2019 8:46 AM

2019-11-14T08:46:27-05:00

This is a very good question, 1st off I feelThat even though I am no longer in the Marine Corps I still feel of sense of discipline and duty to respect the office of the president of the United States even though I may not particularly like the individual. That being said even though I do not particularly care for the individual I still will not criticize them publicly or privately. Because I don't want any civilians or any my family members thinking it is OK to criticize someone that took the time to assume office of such responsibility that even an idiot will understand that you can't please everyone. To this very day even as I send this text, I refuse to criticize president Donald Trump on any level for any reason this has drawn the ire and out rice corn from a lot of people that I know especially in the African American community. I just simply refuse to criticize president Trump, I did not criticize president Obama and I did not criticize president Bill Clinton either.

Response by SN E Robinson made Nov 14 at 2019 11:03 AM

2019-11-14T11:03:33-05:00

As much crap as I see on here talking about President Obama there is no question as to the answer to this question.

Response by TSgt Sandra V. made Nov 15 at 2019 8:37 AM

2019-11-15T08:37:21-05:00

I no longer wear a uniform, am not retired from the military, therefore I am a private citizen and may speak my mind.

Response by MSgt Bedell Toro made Nov 15 at 2019 11:40 AM

2019-11-15T11:40:15-05:00

I think you can criticize a former presidents policy, without disrespecting the person. If a politician is promoting a policy that is detrimental to our veterans. Why shouldn't we have a right to criticize that policy.

Response by CWO3 Warren Gaudreau made Nov 18 at 2019 2:20 PM

2019-11-18T14:20:38-05:00

Former Presidents have no authority and hold no office unless elected or appointed to another office to which the UCMJ would apply.

Response by Michael McCann made Nov 21 at 2019 8:40 AM

2019-11-21T08:40:22-05:00

Well 1st amendment is real important. We should not fear verbalizing our feelings and fear punishment from a basic human freedom- like the amendment right after it (uninfringed!). And after someone wrote a blank check to the government paiable up to my life to fight all enemies foreign and domestic (I said that at meps in 11/22/1996- washed out in April next year thou). I still remember swearing ( you can have the choice to affirm instead of swear). I have no religious preference so I swore (remembering this is paramount to my moral compass). As a veteran me not included because I’m not 128 days does not count as a veteran but as a veteran you should not have fear of voicing your opinion and what if you work for like a another governmental agency in your veteran but now your federal employee under cover Talking shit about the present because you want to find out if someone is a spy under his administration or not in that aspect yes I completely agree the present is a fucking idiot however if you’re not doing that you can show your dislike and still show respect as well guess what I voted for current president.

Response by SGT Joseph Alanzo made Dec 28 at 2019 2:18 AM

2019-12-28T02:18:32-05:00

oh hell no

Response by 1SG James Kelly made Jan 12 at 2020 11:14 PM

2020-01-12T23:14:09-05:00

No.
Now shut up and get back in ranks.

Response by Lt Col Bill Fletcher made Jan 18 at 2020 6:27 PM

2020-01-18T18:27:24-05:00

Of course as already written it depends. If you are on active duty avoid media statements about politics. Period. Dot. Next. If you are a Reservist of member of the National Guard, I would recommend avoidance as well. Once
Retired Enlisted troops are clear but Regular Officers should still be careful as they have a different set of rules. Retired Reserve/ Guard Officers should also be careful if quoted as their retired rank rather than just Mr/Ms.

Response by Maj George Martin made Jan 21 at 2020 2:47 AM

2020-01-21T02:47:23-05:00

Ex is ex.

Response by MSgt George Maynard made Jan 26 at 2020 7:51 PM

2020-01-26T19:51:59-05:00

The Law for Commissioned Officers

There are primarily two (2) provisions of the UCMJ that relate to contemptuous statements against leaders, the first, 10 U.S.C. Section 888, Article 88, titled “Contempt Toward Officials” applies only to Commissioned Officers. The second, 10 U.S.C. Section 934, Article 134 is a General Article that will apply to enlisted personnel.
https://suffolklaw.com/contempt-toward-officials-in-the-u-s-military-only-the-commander-in-chief-can-get-away-with-using-twitter/

Contempt Toward Officials in the US Military – Only the Commander-In-Chief Can Get Away With...

Heated, emotional and bellicose climate is certainly not new to US politics, but constant connectivity to a never-ending news cycle, combined with new forms

Response by 1SG Brian Adams made Feb 4 at 2020 4:12 PM

2020-02-04T16:12:16-05:00

Negative...in uniform should not...operative phrase "Should not"

Response by PO2 Joseph Chantiny made May 6 at 2021 2:08 PM

2021-05-06T14:08:39-04:00

I have a friend who gives cops the finger...he's been ticketed several times, but no judge has ever punished because being disrespectful isn't against the law.
But if you don't want to end up at the "green table" don't be a jerk.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made May 6 at 2021 6:25 PM

2021-05-06T18:25:19-04:00

The actual answer might come down to one question: What are you trying to do?

On one hand, you could be honestly evaluating a Presidential Administration. On the other hand, you might be desperately attempting to prevent somebody from being elected President. We actually have somebody out there who could do a "Grover Cleveland" (technically, two guys, but the other one is probably not interested, being almost 100 years old).

Actively trying to sabotage somebody's chances to become President might not go over too well. In the past Election, we observed a great deal of negative activity; this was happening even during that Administration. A lot of it also negatively impacted the moral of the Department. It was Not Cool.

Making a scholarly evaluation of a past Administration would likely look different. No matter which one you picked, there were several good points and some bad points. I could go all the way back to JFK (though I was just a kid, then). As an adult, I can go back as far as far as President Ford. My service started under President Jimmy Carter.

I remember the criticism of President George "Dubya" Bush. Many considered him to have been the worst President, like, ever. I can see the objections; the Second Iraq War might have had some uncomfortable questions about it. I, however, also saw the good in that Administration. President Bush spoke his mind at all times. He was an honest politician, unlike many whom one could imagine to constantly have Public Affairs consultants whispering advice into their ears. Also, his response to 911 was swift and decisive. I could go on in spite of his faults and missteps. I could also say many good things about his predecessors; this includes Carter, Ford, Clinton and Reagan. I could do the same for his successors, Obama and Trump.

So, what are you trying to do?

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made May 7 at 2021 8:50 AM

2021-05-07T08:50:21-04:00

Some questions are better not answered

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2021 12:54 PM

2021-05-08T12:54:26-04:00

Was reading up on this topic again recently. For those who are looking for a citation...

https://www.defense.gov/ask-us/faq/Article/1774809/what-is-the-policy-for-participating-in-political-campaigns/#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20all%20military%20members,outside%20of%20the%20federal%20workplace.

404 - File or directory not found.