Posted on May 10, 2015
Do you think military service members should be prosecuted under UCMJ for disrespect to the Commander-in-Chief? I say absolutely, YES!
214K
1.12K
648
95
84
11
Disrespect
Office of the President (POTUS)
UCMJ
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 239
4
4
0
I believe respect is earned. I believe the position of CiC should be respected. I believe the Office of POTUS should be respected. I do not believe, however, that the individual sitting in those seats has earned respect. I believe military members should not be prosecuted for having an opinion, nor stating/expressing it (outside of threats and the like). No one should be forced into 'respecting' someone under threat of prosecution. Defend 1A much?
(4)
(0)
SFC Malvin Espinosa
You earned every subordinates respect by the rank/position you hold, achieved through your achievements, everyone that reaches that oval office deserves respects, they had their achievements on the way there as well, I bet if one of your soldiers expresses a derogatory opinion about you, you immediately would go 4856 on him and threaten UCMJ, order keeps us disciplined
(1)
(1)
SGT James P. Davidson, MSM
SFC, in that situation, I would first want to know what, if anything, I had done to warrant a lack of respect. I have been in that situation, and discovered that, in fact, I had earned the disrespect being given. I had to change ME, not force the SPC to respect me based on my 'accomplishments'.
And I throw you one further: the Office of POTUS deserves respect, not the sitter of the Seat. Why do you think President Washington refused a title of nobility? Be aware: a 'president' is , by definition, a 'servant', not a king, not a ruler.
Per your example of 'deserving' - that desert MUST be earned REGULARLY, because when it becomes expected (when speaking of the individual, not the rank/position/title), that individual will lose it faster than he could imagine.
A personal example: When I deployed with (to me) a strange unit (not my 'home' unit), I respected my E5 squad leader, as he was an E5. I did not respect the man wearing the rank, however. He was a selfish crybaby. It was discovered, for instance, that when promotions were being considered, our platoon sergeant and platoon leader couldn't figure out why none of his squad had been recommended, though each was performing up to, and above standard. He never offered a clear answer for it, but when inquiring about his own, his leadership came in to question. His response for the former situation became clear, as he stated that he would not promote ANYONE in his squad unless and until he was promoted. He was all about 'self'.
How much respect, then, did he 'deserve'? It was obvious he didn't earn any.
I ended up with his squad, by the way. He was moved to another squad - under an E5 with less time in rank/service, but who out-soldiered him on every level.
No, SFC Espinosa - respect is not 'automatically' earned by simply 'being'.
And I disagree on another point - just because someone is in the Oval Office - that doesn't mean he has 'earned' my respect. It means he was elected by the Electorate College to hold the position. While I respect the Office, I have no respect for the man holding it currently. I don't respect liars, nor enemies of my nation.
And I throw you one further: the Office of POTUS deserves respect, not the sitter of the Seat. Why do you think President Washington refused a title of nobility? Be aware: a 'president' is , by definition, a 'servant', not a king, not a ruler.
Per your example of 'deserving' - that desert MUST be earned REGULARLY, because when it becomes expected (when speaking of the individual, not the rank/position/title), that individual will lose it faster than he could imagine.
A personal example: When I deployed with (to me) a strange unit (not my 'home' unit), I respected my E5 squad leader, as he was an E5. I did not respect the man wearing the rank, however. He was a selfish crybaby. It was discovered, for instance, that when promotions were being considered, our platoon sergeant and platoon leader couldn't figure out why none of his squad had been recommended, though each was performing up to, and above standard. He never offered a clear answer for it, but when inquiring about his own, his leadership came in to question. His response for the former situation became clear, as he stated that he would not promote ANYONE in his squad unless and until he was promoted. He was all about 'self'.
How much respect, then, did he 'deserve'? It was obvious he didn't earn any.
I ended up with his squad, by the way. He was moved to another squad - under an E5 with less time in rank/service, but who out-soldiered him on every level.
No, SFC Espinosa - respect is not 'automatically' earned by simply 'being'.
And I disagree on another point - just because someone is in the Oval Office - that doesn't mean he has 'earned' my respect. It means he was elected by the Electorate College to hold the position. While I respect the Office, I have no respect for the man holding it currently. I don't respect liars, nor enemies of my nation.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I don't believe so. The respect should be given to the office not the person sitting. If that person has distespected the constitution such in this case than how am I to hold him in respect? He is to obey the constitution as I am. Not make up new as he sees fit. This is the job of legislature. Not the president!!
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Wheeler as I have respect for your grade and position. The constitution is were the UCMJ is from Although I agree about limiting what is said. Most that disagree with our sitting commander in chief is concerning policy. Not the individual. In this case policy is being decided without proper debate and legislative action by voting!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
The office of the Presidency should be respected, not only by the Military, but by the office holder as well.
(4)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
I think the guy thought that everyone was saluting him!?! Well, it was just a thought...
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
This has come up before CW5 Roy Rucker Sr.. As I am sure you know Officers can be specifically charged and prosecuted under the Art 88 of the UCMJ, but enlisted Soldiers are not bound by that Article. You could make an argument elsewhere like conduct unbecoming etc.
The really gray area, especially within RP, is what are the rules once you ETS, retire etc. I still feel bond by the UCMJ...
http://nlgmltf.org/leaflets/GI_Rights_free_speech.html
The really gray area, especially within RP, is what are the rules once you ETS, retire etc. I still feel bond by the UCMJ...
http://nlgmltf.org/leaflets/GI_Rights_free_speech.html
(4)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
Sir, isn't "conduct unbecoming" specifically an Officer charge? I.e., "Conduct unbecoming an Officer and a gentleman?"
But yes, I do agree with you for the most part. I also feel somewhat bound by the UCMJ but I also feel that not only as a veteran but a concerned US citizen, I have the right (and duty) to speak out against the POTUS's policies that I don't agree with. What I DON'T do (in public/online) is blatantly disrespect the President (regardless of whoever is in office at the moment, and I went through 4 CINC's. Bush 41 (though he left office while I was still in boot camp), Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama).
But yes, I do agree with you for the most part. I also feel somewhat bound by the UCMJ but I also feel that not only as a veteran but a concerned US citizen, I have the right (and duty) to speak out against the POTUS's policies that I don't agree with. What I DON'T do (in public/online) is blatantly disrespect the President (regardless of whoever is in office at the moment, and I went through 4 CINC's. Bush 41 (though he left office while I was still in boot camp), Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama).
(1)
(0)
SSG Dwight Amey MSA, MSL, BS, AS
COL Charles Williams, I look at being retired at least this way. I am still on the payroll and I can still be called back at the discretion of the Department of the Army. This makes the grey area kind of less grey depending on the situation. I would say in my case the conditions exist where I can be prosecuted under the UCMJ.
(1)
(0)
SGT Anthony Bussing
the powers that be can always get you on Article 134....if all else fails...here comes good ole 134...
(0)
(0)
Article 88 for officers, and I believe enlisted members can get an Article 134.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SrA Eddie, yes you are correct Article 88 is only for Officers and Article 134 (Disloyal Statements) would be applied to the enlisted side.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Sir,
I believe if you can get UCMJ for tellin an NCO/Officer to piss off then it is standard data to get slammed for bad mouthing the commander in chief. Why should it matter if the man is in the room or not? It's simple like showing up to formation on time.. You don't want to get smoked be there 15 minutes prior.. Well, if you don't want UCMJ keep your comments to yourself or run for president lol
I believe if you can get UCMJ for tellin an NCO/Officer to piss off then it is standard data to get slammed for bad mouthing the commander in chief. Why should it matter if the man is in the room or not? It's simple like showing up to formation on time.. You don't want to get smoked be there 15 minutes prior.. Well, if you don't want UCMJ keep your comments to yourself or run for president lol
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Chief:
Absolutely I believe their is ART 88 “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.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
Absolutely I believe their is ART 88 “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.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
(4)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
Chief:
This is a good question, and it is also a double bind. The fact is Article 88 provides strict guidance on the repercussions for talking against Leadership. NON NEGOTIABLE!
This is a good question, and it is also a double bind. The fact is Article 88 provides strict guidance on the repercussions for talking against Leadership. NON NEGOTIABLE!
(2)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
Article 91 – Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer

The primary focus of Article 91 is the third point. The wording of the third bullet is similar to Article 89, but it includes warrant officers and noncommissioned officers.
ART. 91 Any warrant officer or enlisted member who-- (1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office; (2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or (3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The primary focus of Article 91 is the third point. The wording of the third bullet is similar to Article 89, but it includes warrant officers and noncommissioned officers.
ART. 91 Any warrant officer or enlisted member who-- (1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office; (2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or (3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(2)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
Article 133 – Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

Article 133 is a catch-all article. Several instances of inappropriate social media use can fall under this article.

Posting obscene photos, linking to inappropriate material or conducting yourself on a social media platform in a manner that is unprofessional or generally offensive can lead to punishment under the UCMJ.
ART. 133
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 133 is a catch-all article. Several instances of inappropriate social media use can fall under this article.

Posting obscene photos, linking to inappropriate material or conducting yourself on a social media platform in a manner that is unprofessional or generally offensive can lead to punishment under the UCMJ.
ART. 133
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis I hope you are doing fine. I am ok except the potential kidney stone is stalking me in my ureters. That aside I am pretty good. About one year 1/2 past my living in the car.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I agree, that individual should get ucmj.
To my opinion, Anyone in uniform should be respect, Regarless of ranks, We are that 1%, Eat,Sleep,Fight as a team.
To my opinion, Anyone in uniform should be respect, Regarless of ranks, We are that 1%, Eat,Sleep,Fight as a team.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
The better question is why aren't they charged with Art 88 Contempt towards officials? Doesn't matter how you feel about the person who holds the office, you should keep your opinions between yourself and the voting booth.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
UCMJ is pretty clear on this matter, and I wholeheartedly support it. Private conversations are fine, but always remember who is listening. Facebook is not the place to disrespect POTUS.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Kenneth Robinson
I had military member who kept posting negative things about the President, on Facebook. When I told him to watch it, his wife chimed in and said its his Constitutional right to say what he wanted to say. I never did answer her but I him that he could believe his civilian wife or a Senior NCO with over 20 years in service. Civilians are civilians for a reason...lol.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Most definitely!! We forget you lose the right to criticize POTUS when swear to the oath to protect this country and take all orders from your commander-in-chief
(3)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SSG (Join to see)
You do not surrender your rights as a citizen because you take the oath to defend the Constitution, nor does being critical of the President, or anyone else, automatically make it disrespectful. I are required to follow the LAWFUL orders of the President and those appointed above us but be careful where you try plant your flag on this one.
Using your standard, DO NOT disagree with me because I would consider that disrespectful and then begin UCMJ proceedings against yourself.
You do not surrender your rights as a citizen because you take the oath to defend the Constitution, nor does being critical of the President, or anyone else, automatically make it disrespectful. I are required to follow the LAWFUL orders of the President and those appointed above us but be careful where you try plant your flag on this one.
Using your standard, DO NOT disagree with me because I would consider that disrespectful and then begin UCMJ proceedings against yourself.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
To that standard, yes and good point MSG Brad Sand It is a slippery slope but as long as they walk the line in keeping in a complaining context, then they're alright. It's when they plant their flag as you say and become disrespectful
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
SSG (Join to see) t i
Normally it is more about how it was said, than what was said. Of course there are also some thin skinned whining little bit...people who are wrong and not willing to admit it, and that goes to my question about defining disrespect?
Normally it is more about how it was said, than what was said. Of course there are also some thin skinned whining little bit...people who are wrong and not willing to admit it, and that goes to my question about defining disrespect?
(0)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
I love it when someone says I don't have any rights as an active duty service member. Right then I there, I know that person is not a lawyer or has failed to conducted proper research. If we didn't have rights, MPs could pull us over at random and search our POV without PC and many other things could happen.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google