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

I don't think the military service member should be prosecuted if they do not identify themselves as active duty personnel by rank. That is signing a post as xxxxx, Sgt, U.S. Army. If the post is made as an individual personally I don't think they should be prosecuted. Members of the US military are still citizens of the United States - - they can vote, have opinions about the direction the country takes and should be able to express them as citizens, not military personnel. Now when you get up into the high military ranks where people know who they are that might be another mattter.

I do agree with Col. Jones that the President is a civilian who directs and orders the actions of the military of the United States. Is he subject to the UCMJ? I don't know, but I doubt it. In some ways his job is different from that of a Commander of a unit.

Yes!! Regardless of who the Commander in Chief is.

During the Bush Presidency did you bad mouth him? Did you bad mouth Clinton?

The president is human and prone to errors. He's just a man and nobody is perfect.

I say politics in the work place are a no no and people get to emotional over it. I say talk about something good like puppies.

Agree...100%

Traditionally they have not. How far back should they go? 7 years? 10? 15? Every comment? Who should choose?

I believe that even members of the active military should have the right to comment on the policies of the civilian administration as it applies to the military or anything else. it's harder for me to separate criticism of policy from criticism of the individual making that policy. That takes a pretty good writer to do so and I think that the member of the military should be given a lot of room. As far as veterans I believe they should say whatever they want whether they get VA benefits or not. Should a person be indentured to the government merely because they receive what the government is obligated to provide them for their service? I think not. Going further, should anyone on Social Security be forbidden to criticize the President? Where would it stop?

If in uniform, yes. If not in uniform, NO! You do not relinquish your Constitutional rights just because you are in the military. While you are in uniform, you represent the nation and once you take that uniform off at the end of the day, while you may still be in the military, you are free to express your views.

Respect is always given to the Office of the Presidency. Respect for the person in that office must be earned and not just automatically given because of the office held. In my 63 years, I have been alive through twelve Presidents. Out of all twelve I can honestly say I have respect for four...Truman, Ike, Kennedy & Reagan. In my opinion they are the only ones who put their country ahead of themselves. For the record, I am a conservative.

The oath of enlistment states, "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." By having the obey the orders of the president in there it implies that we will support the office and its direction according to the UCMJ. We don't have the luxury of not following his orders because we don't agree and we certainly don't have the right as long as we are in a uniform to disrespect the CINC.

The officer oath states. "I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the "enter service branch here", as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution give the president the title and authorization of Commander in Chief. So by stating this oath you swore to protect the constitution...all of it...not just what we believe. By disrespecting the president you are undermining the authority of the office and should be held accountable.

In light of the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, the answer is no, especially as it relates to politicians vs. commanding officers and supervisory NCOs. Who gets to decide what "disrespect" is toward a politician? What if I were from Texas and signed a petition of impeachment of the current sitting President (calling for the removal of your superior officer could definitely be considered "disrespect," or "sedition," or "mutiny.") This gets to the heart of the question: "what is disrespect," and "who should it apply to, both military and elected officials?" If it's a politician does it only apply if I'm in uniform? (What if I call for his resignation or impeachment on FB): Is it disrespect only if my FB page identifies me as being in the military? Or only if my FB picture is of me in uniform with a statement on my page? Just as politics is local, so is leadership. If you are prosecuting someone for disrespect, you've already failed in your fundamental leadership responsibility, and that would apply to the President as well.

I say if the Commander and Chief does not follow his oath then the member should be able to voice it because the military oath states support and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies....and our politicians take an oath as well but are not so much as questioned on following theirs. My oath in the military was never about an individual but the basic principal of what our nation stands for. Our military is here to follow lawful orders, not unlawful ones. Any that are anti-Constitution are not lawful orders. Our politicians are selling the American people out. I say if the member is tactful about how it is voiced then it should not be punishable. For some it is hard to watch our own president weaken this great nation. Other prefer to silently be on for the ride blindly following.