Do you think military service members should be prosecuted under UCMJ for disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief? I say absolutely, YES!

Let's understand what contemptuous is - "The Benchbook defines it as insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness." The Manual for Courts-Martial asserts that contemptuous language is either so obvious that it amounts to contempt per se or it may be inferred by examining the circumstances surrounding the making of the accused’s statement. That Benchbook by the way is DA PAM 27-9.

Art 88, 92, 93, 133, 134 have been covered, but you can also include Art 117 Provoking Speeches and Gestures. There are two pertinent Department of Defense directives (DODD) that govern political speech in the military. Directive 1325.6 establishes guidelines for dealing with protest and dissident activities, and Directive 1344.10 specifies the types of political activities that may be appropriate for
active-duty service members to engage in. The directives establish principles that are intended to help commanders balance the free speech rights of their troops with their own command obligations. For instance, DODD 1325.6 counsels commanders to preserve the service member’s right of expression to the utmost extent on the one-hand while on the other they are cautioned not to ignore conduct that could destroy the effectiveness of their units. The directives also presuppose that commanders will exercise calm and prudent judgment when trying to properly reconcile these two interests when they clash.

Department of Defense Instruction 1334.01 generally forbids wearing a uniform while participating in any personal, professional, or political activity where an inference of official sponsorship may be drawn. Examples include giving an unofficial public speech or interview and participating in a march, picket, or any other form of public demonstration. A good rule of thumb is that members may never wear a uniform while engaging in any activity that would tend to bring discredit upon the armed forces or create an inference of official endorsement on behalf of the military.

Unlike UCMJ, the directives do not distinguish service members who publicly criticize a President and oppose a war from those who openly support both. The directives were intended to preserve in part the long- standing tradition that the military remain an apolitical body whose duty is to obey the orders of its civilian leaders. Just as soldiers are prohibited from airing their grievances in public, so too should they refrain from delivering speeches, granting interviews, and publishing statements that tend to show partisan support for any cause and political leader.

Here's a bit of trivia, Art 88 of the UCMJ is rooted in the British Articles of War of 1765, much like all the other UCMJ articles. "The British Articles of War forbade any officer or soldier from using traitorous or disrespectful words against the King or members of the royal family. The articles also forbade British troops from behaving with contempt or disrespect toward a general or other commander-in-chief of the British forces and from using words tending to hurt or dishonor them."

In June 1775, the Continental Congress adopted this provision and slightly modified the language to make it applicable to the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. In 1776, Congress amended the provision to prohibit the use of traitorous or disrespectful words against the United States Congress or any state legislature in which a soldier or officer may be quartered. The provision was modified again in 1806 to preclude the President and Vice President from being treated as objects of disrespect. The provision remained unchanged until Congress incorporated it into Article 88 of the UCMJ in 1950.

Here's something very interesting in reference to Art 88; "The government may not charge expressions of opinion made during the course of a private conversation or adverse criticism of a protected official or legislature if it was not personally contemptuous and was done during the course of a political discussion" So in order to secure an Article 88 conviction, the government must prove that the accused was a commissioned officer; that he or she used certain words against the official or legislature specified in the article; that a third party became aware of these words because of an act attributed to the accused; and that the words were contemptuous in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances in which they were used.

Now those of you who are retired, have you ever heard a retired Soldier say, “They can’t touch me now; I’ve retired.”? Fortunately, for the sake of military justice, this is not true when it comes to retired Soldiers who violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) while they were on active duty or in a retired status.

Under Article 2 of the UCMJ, the Army maintains court-martial jurisdiction over retired personnel. Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice, states “Retired members of a regular component of the Armed Forces who are entitled to pay are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations of the UCMJ that occurred while they were on active duty or while in a retired status.” Included within Article 2(4)’s ambit are service members retired for either a permanent or temporary disability. Department of the Army policy, however, does limit these trials to cases where extraordinary circumstances are present. The Army normally declines to prosecute retired Soldiers unless their crimes have clear ties to the military, or are clearly service discrediting. If necessary to facilitate courts-martial action, retired Soldiers may be ordered to active duty. (I am sure this applies to the other service branches with respect to regulations of said branch)

The regulation adds that “Retired Reserve Component Soldiers are subject to recall to active duty for the investigation of UCMJ offenses they are alleged to have committed while in a Title 10 duty status, for trial by court-martial, or for proceedings under UCMJ, Article 15.” Forfeitures imposed under the UCMJ, Article 15 may even be applied against a Soldier’s retired pay. Now if there any savvy lawyers/legal specialists, I do believe there's a two-year statute of limitations for Article 15's and the five year statute of limitations for Court Martial still applies.

First off I apologize for this post being long winded. I suffer from a severe chronic nerve pain that does not allow me to get adequate REM sleep, go out in public for long periods or just enjoy simple mundane things, like taking out the garbage or washing dishes. So I am up at all hours of the day and night riddled with brief respites of 20-30 minute cat naps. CW5 Roy Rucker Sr., I sincerely apologize if I went off topic. I found your post to be intriguing and thought provoking, so much I would do some research and contribute some dialogue without the need to insult anyone's intelligence, unnecessarily use profane language or attack anyone's opinion. In summary, this could be one of those late night ramblings of an ill man having difficulty recalling, but thankful for those RP notifications to remind me and hope I didn't spark another storm.

If Hillary gets elected it's going to be damned difficult to not badmouth that lying bitch.

Did you believe the same when Bush was president?

I agree, disrespect of anyone in the chain of command and NCO support channel can affect unit moral. And it is prosecutable under UCMJ.

Do you mean like Sadam did when someone criticised him.

888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
10. Punitive Articles
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.

Nothing specific with regard to enlisted, except the good all catch all Article 134 that can get you for a crooked smile.

CW5 Rucker, did you feel the same way when President Bush was in office, or is this because you like Obama?
Prosecuted for what? Having an opinion are you crazy?

Of course they should......but expressing one's disagreement with the commander and chief is not the same as being disrespectful.....the trick would be drawing the line between what is free speech and what is disrespectful. Course the simple answer should just be, as in the civilian world, you are always better off not discussing politics or religion in the work place.

There are some here on RP who seem to relish in doing exactly that.

utter nonsense. Obama is a disgrace to the position. He swore and oath to defend the constitution and had his fingers crossed behind his back. I say Obama should be prosecuted for lying under oath.