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

Even though the CIC is a civilian, his title says it all, Commander In Chief. He is the top in the chain of command. All the rules that apply to Commissioned officers also apply to him. And, like with any other member of the Armed Forces, you do not have to respect him, but you DO have to respect the office he holds.

With social media being what it is today, this issue can very easily put soldiers into a sticky situation. I understand where you're coming from Chief, but the fact remains that human beings will always have opinions about everything.

The line in the sand would have to be the venue for someone venting their personal thoughts about a higher ranking officer. We've all had moments where a particularly lack luster leader has pushed our blood pressure to unhealthy heights. If that person were to go to his or her immediate supervisor to vent, I would say this is acceptable. The venue is private and the goal isn't slander, but an expression of frustration. That supervisor can then offer some sage words of wisdom and the two can move forward to accomplish the mission.

If the chosen venue is on social media, a public interview with the press, or somehow taken as formal record, then there are some issues. When taken in this context, we are ambassadors for the military. When in a public medium, we can't be "off the record". Most of us don't have the training necessary to successfully communicate with media outlets. That is when disparaging remarks about a commanding officer should be met with a swift response.

Look at what happened with General McChrystal. From what I read in that now infamous Rollingstones article, the general was never specifically quoted as being critical of the Obama administration and its policies directly to any reporter. It was mostly his support staff that would let the reporter in on private conversations and attitudes. I wasn't around for any of this, so I take my sources with a grain of salt. General McChrystal was held accountable for the environment cultivated among his staff. General MacArthur was much more forward about his opinion of President Truman's response to Chinese aggression in North Korea and suffered the consequences for his public appearances.

UCMJ should be used to convey the message that these types of public displays do not promote good order and conduct in the unit. This includes Facebook, Twitter, Rally Point, or any other type of social media now used or soon to come. As with any disciplinary issue, if it can be solved with a verbal reprimand or a written counseling statement, all the better. Otherwise, these things will accumulate into a pretty open and closed UCMJ action.

No......you shouldnt be persecuted for your opinion ....thats sounds like dictatorship to me...js...it would also be a direct violation of the 1st amendment..freedom of speech....

Your question is not so easy to answer. You need to define "disrespect" because there are some people who say, "If you don't like the president's policies then you are ... (fill in the blank)".

The Oath of Commissioned Officer states that they will,"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I think there are a lot of people who equate Constitution with President and that is not the case. The President does NOT equal the Constitution.

The enlisted oath states, "I do solemnly swear 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".

If whatever, whomever does is against the Constitution or the UCMJ then it isn't considered a disrespect.

I know I'd follow the Constitution because that is the oath I swore to. If someone is disappointed in that then I would definitely be disappointed in them.

When I was active I never said anything in public about the President. I actually like the 1st Bush and had no ill will toward Bush II. I noticed when President Obama was elected a lot of military people went off on the deep in. For instance, the day after the election, some people had the first family on their computers as screen savers. Other members came around and told them to take the pictures off. I had to intervene and tell them since he is now the President elect, having pictures was allowed. The second thing that amazed me was how many people didn't want their retirement certificate with Obama's name on it. I had never witnessed that in 23 years of serving. BTW, I retired 5 months after he became President. He had not even changed or implemented any policies. I can say that people were vocal about Presidents when I was in but it seemed like they were more frequent when Obama was elected.

The problem, how do you know it is disrespect? If we go by the way disrespectful behavior is considered by senior personnel, "anything I deem as disrespect, is"

Blantent disrespect is easy, but because someone may complain about one thing or another as all members of every branch do one cannot charge someone on the basis of disrespect. given how vastly polarizing politics are we would have 90% of our armed forces brought up on charges.

Case in point, I have always had a problem with George Bushes so called Patriot act, I felt then as I do know that it set an unprecedented challenge against the people's constitunal rights and expanded the power of the federal Government. even being in uniform I could still discuss this issue however I was bound by the UCMJ to not act politically through protests and so fourth. Would that have by your definition been considered disrespectful?

The day Obama was elected my company found out just before we were to roll out the gate, now I didn't vote for Obama nor wold I have I did not then nor do I now think he can or has been able to do the job he had been elected to. So when everyone else gave a big yay I said boo, now my first sergeant said "we can just leave you out in sector"

I had not been disresctfull to the newly elected president but my first sergeant might have felt I was. I said boo because one I looked at Obama's record as a state representative of Illinois, and two I took into account his expirance as well as people he had associated with.

So do you feel I should have been charged under the UCMJ? If so why? And for which of the two examples I gave, or both.

My 'knee-jerk' reaction is yes.
Trying to make that work logistically would, I believe, be impossible.
When I was in Iraq and Iraqi officials would ask me (via interpreter) "Do the American people 'like' President Bush?", I always answered that he was the Commander in Chief of the Military, and the leader of our Nation; and that in America we express any displeasure with any official at the ballot box. The usual response was, "I see". Never in a Military capacity, nor in public would I ever voice anything other than respect for that great office, regardless of the "Name on the Door".

Because UCMJ punishment is, for the most part, at the discretion of unit Commanders (Company and Battalion), it would be extremely difficult to establish a blanket policy in regards to this. The same offense committed in different units could be handled with different amounts of punishment. That said...

I do my best to always support the office of the President of the United States. I may not always agree with the individuals policies, or his vision for the country, but he is THE Head of State. The office of the President is more important than any one man (or woman, for that matter). Just as the Constitution of the United States is the most important document in our nation, the position of The President of the United States is the most important office in our nation. It does not matter who is holding the office, if I have the opportunity to meet and shake hands with the President, I absolutely will, and do so with hat in hand.

I don't think anyone should be silenced in their dissent or support of political policies. It is one of the reasons this country was founded. Likewise, the system of electing our president should be supported. If you don't like the Electoral College, elect representatives in Congress and the Senate who want to change it. Until then, the person elected to be the President is the person chosen by our system. You don't have to agree with the man or woman, or agree with their policies, but you should respect the elected position.

I agree

Chief, disrespecting ANY commander-in-chief is punishable under UCMJ. The awesome thing about our country is the pendulum swings both ways. Sure you might not agree with everything they stand for but you made an oath to stand by the constitution and its tenets, which includes supporting the President. In 4 years, you'll then likely get someone you align with more, while others less, etc. It's the reason why we succeed for the most part as a democracy. Yeah we aren't perfect, nobody is, but that does not give us the right to slander any President as oath-bound Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, etc. Don't like fiscal policy? Go vote. Complaining goes nowhere, right? Adjust fire and drive on they say.