Posted on Nov 10, 2016
Do you think that we will see more UCMJ for Contempt Towards Officials (Article 88) in today's divided country under a Trump administration?
34.5K
40
25
5
5
0
A while back, a fellow Warrant Officer posted a question asking if we should hold people accountable in cases of disrespect towards the President. We saw very few cases of this during the last 8 years.
In my last 4 duty stations covering Pres. Obama's time in office I have noticed a right-leaning Army and wonder if we will see more Article 88 prosecutions under our new CIC.
In my last 4 duty stations covering Pres. Obama's time in office I have noticed a right-leaning Army and wonder if we will see more Article 88 prosecutions under our new CIC.
UCMJ
Donald Trump
Office of the President (POTUS)
Respect
Duty
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
Likely more of an "informal" issue than anything formal. This is more of a behind closed doors issue than anything anyone wants escalated to CM. Even standard "disrespect" is normally dealt with personally rather than creating a paper-trail.
(5)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
I would agree with you wholeheartedly if things were normal. They are not in the case of today. People are being extremely emotional, divided amongst absolutes (you don't like it? your a -ist or -phobe), and the new generation is apparently upset with the 'system'.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CW5 (Join to see) - I don't disagree with you, but I tend to trust in our people. If they go off the rails, guys like you are going to "counsel" with words like "Hey, I get you don't like the man/etc, but while wearing the uniform, or representing the Service, you've got to be tactful." Gentle reminders will likely tell people "keep your mouth shut at the office & on social media" which doesn't fix the issue but it does make the symptoms go away.
(2)
(0)
In 28 years I never saw or heard first hand a charge of, nor conviction for Art 88
(4)
(0)
SGM Steve Wettstein
SGM Erik Marquez - Art 134 is pretty much a catch all Article. It is probably the most used Article on an MP Blotter. I agree with you, I never saw it used. Also, the units I was in were disciplined enough that the Soldiers didn't spout off nonsense against the POTUS.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SGM Steve Wettstein - It is a catch all, but also has specific sub components to address specific charges...and non of those sub components address "disparaging the POTUS" If the command though the remark was prejudicial to good order and discipline, and if the commander and the UCMJ athority believed they could get a CM conviction, they are free to charge and tri the member...But I think it would be a long shot to get a jury of the members peers to hand out a federal conviction for the crime of calling the POTUS a doo doo head, liar, dishonest, or even unfit to command.
(2)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Ok, SGM Erik Marquez , heres a paper about the history of Article 88 and how even a general was prosecuted under art. 88 in the Clinton administration.
https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/ARMYLAWYER.NSF/0/686b63c [login to see] 5256e5b0054e11a/$FILE/Article%201.pdf
Miltary Review had a more in depth article but I am not paying for that subscription.
https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/ARMYLAWYER.NSF/0/686b63c [login to see] 5256e5b0054e11a/$FILE/Article%201.pdf
Miltary Review had a more in depth article but I am not paying for that subscription.
&ÁÞÆ{ãsMÁ5PªhRÌ˵31l;9]È!PqGjm#¶_ÅÔÄføÜË9µs O§W xg8B `Ð)?sCGàlégóü~ø~Â&=TÑsP3:VFµtõÅ-7/CtZãÌaR`Ø¡ú)îÖLÊ;Ê?Í?ÂYsv,ÊþÈ·è]éL:! tÄL"ÜYÐ.'ìWèQdë Ñ*182ÙñûïäÁñú_Ùùj ÃOÊ}7JnfLøuÄpåÆ{ºãÆmæÛFr3åó7ÅÄß4X:m{Jér+dFýrr?ðõ0KüÑÄÑë(_AYfð5ÄÁ0&1vßõSXÆÎ(:èt"ñûa.rºÖBñêw:@2*üÔ:û `,ÎÈËFOpl§ãßÍerñ$KÂãïÑò
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
CW5 (Join to see) - Thanks sir, so now I can say in 52 years, 28 serving, I have now heard of a few... I had no doubt there would be some, more im sure.
I apologize if my point was not more clear. I was never saying NO ONE had been prosecuted, just that the rate of those being charged and convicted of an ART 88 (or 134 for enlisted) for bad mouthing the POTUS must be fairly small, insgifinigant even statsitcally wise.
It seems these charges have been lived by Presidents Clinton, Lincoln, Wilson,
Coolidge, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson. So all well before my time but for Clinton, and thinking back i can remember the warnings, but not caring about it personally it fell on deaf ears.
Having not done the research, and knowing the US Gov never writes a rule, reg or policy that was not already needed because of past actions..Id guess art 88 was added post seeing the need, and in that era it was used,,,,perhaps before my time?
All I know (knew) was having been surrounded by brash, loudmouth, impulsive verity of Soldiers for a lot of years, and having heard more then a few remarks that could have gotten them charged with ART 88 or 134...none ever were, nor until today had I even heard of a charge.
I apologize if my point was not more clear. I was never saying NO ONE had been prosecuted, just that the rate of those being charged and convicted of an ART 88 (or 134 for enlisted) for bad mouthing the POTUS must be fairly small, insgifinigant even statsitcally wise.
It seems these charges have been lived by Presidents Clinton, Lincoln, Wilson,
Coolidge, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson. So all well before my time but for Clinton, and thinking back i can remember the warnings, but not caring about it personally it fell on deaf ears.
Having not done the research, and knowing the US Gov never writes a rule, reg or policy that was not already needed because of past actions..Id guess art 88 was added post seeing the need, and in that era it was used,,,,perhaps before my time?
All I know (knew) was having been surrounded by brash, loudmouth, impulsive verity of Soldiers for a lot of years, and having heard more then a few remarks that could have gotten them charged with ART 88 or 134...none ever were, nor until today had I even heard of a charge.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
/We live in a time where our freedom of speech and expression has been misrepresented into "freedom to live in the world of our choosing". That being said, while I disagreed with the actions of the current CIC, I did respect the office. Freedom of speech is important, but as active duty military we have a responsibility to follow orders and preserve the chain of command.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
The question made me chuckle. I heard quite a few folks of the commissioned persuasion speak rather ill of “Jimmah” in the late 70s… especially after the Desert One debacle.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I certainly hope not. I think there may have been more issues with comments about Obama but who knows.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
A military that has relinquished discipline is nothing more than an armed mob. UCMJ must be upheld and prosecuted when violations occur.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I have to chuckle here... I've read the comments and have to remind some that only a short while ago you were condemning President Obama. In fact, you only called him Obama. So let's not point fingers at our liberal members.
I served under 2 Conservatives and a liberal, and never did I question the validity of any of them. I took an oath, and like most of us, stuck to it on good faith. I hope that these fine service members of this generation will do the same.
I served under 2 Conservatives and a liberal, and never did I question the validity of any of them. I took an oath, and like most of us, stuck to it on good faith. I hope that these fine service members of this generation will do the same.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Most of the situations I have personally witnessed regarding disrespect towards President Obama mostly had to do with omitting the "President" before his surname, which, if I'm not going to allow a junior Soldier to address me by last name only, I have to correct addressing the President in that way.
Regarding actual disrespect, I believe that leaders have done a good job of parsing the difference between disrespect and protected speech under the First Amendment. Oh yes, Constitutional protections still apply to service members.
It is my right as a citizen (and a voter!) to say: "I disagree with the President's policy on X." That is reasonable and protected.
I cannot say: "The President is [insert perjorative]!" Disrespect.
President-Elect Trump will be the fifth Commander-in-Chief under whom I've served, and generally, professionals remain professional.
Regarding actual disrespect, I believe that leaders have done a good job of parsing the difference between disrespect and protected speech under the First Amendment. Oh yes, Constitutional protections still apply to service members.
It is my right as a citizen (and a voter!) to say: "I disagree with the President's policy on X." That is reasonable and protected.
I cannot say: "The President is [insert perjorative]!" Disrespect.
President-Elect Trump will be the fifth Commander-in-Chief under whom I've served, and generally, professionals remain professional.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When I was active duty the UCMJ was to be adhered to period. My opinion was not important to the mission. Following orders was. It amazes me that this is a question on this site. now to qualify, if ask my opinion. I gave it with the understanding my orders were paramount. And when off duty, the UCMJ wasn't.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Its a question on this site as skuttlebutt has been and always will be present in the service. The grumblings of the youth and the new recruit will also always be there especially if the leaders are not present or willing to instill discipline.
There are many articles and posts regarding the lack of discipline in the service today.
There are many articles and posts regarding the lack of discipline in the service today.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Leroy Leftwich
CW5 (Join to see) - LOL, copy that. It has been a long time and a world away since I was active.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google