Posted on Feb 23, 2017
Does openly and aggressively berating or insulting people who voted for Hillary or Trump warrant an Article 134 violation under UCMJ?
78.3K
847
417
69
69
0
*First Edit*
There seems to be some misunderstanding: the nature of my question isn't about disrespecting or defying the POTUS, it's about when service members berate, insult or lash out at civilians, friends, peers or family members on social media or otherwise, simply because they voted for the opposite candidate.
*Second Edit*
Also, to clarify, I believe the behavior in question is wrong. I think some folks interpreted my question as asking for justification to be a jerk, but that couldn't be further from the case. I just wanted to generate discussion about people's opinions regarding whether being aggressive or hateful towards voters because of their choice was just being a crappy person, or a legitimate punitive breach of military bearing and discipline.
When President Obama won, there was a deluge of complaints, the birther movement, a different brand of "Not my president." Now that President Trump has won office, there's similar sentiment. On either side, there is a lot of aggression being thrown around. Do you feel Service Members have a higher responsibility to be respectful of the American voters, regardless of their choice?
Respect of the POTUS is a given, we're expected, as service members, to render that. My question is more in line with respecting the fellow Americans that voted; it seems antithetical to me to be aggressive and hurtful to fellow Americans, especially those that have dissenting opinions from ours, for exercising one of the fundamental rights we swore to uphold and defend.
There seems to be some misunderstanding: the nature of my question isn't about disrespecting or defying the POTUS, it's about when service members berate, insult or lash out at civilians, friends, peers or family members on social media or otherwise, simply because they voted for the opposite candidate.
*Second Edit*
Also, to clarify, I believe the behavior in question is wrong. I think some folks interpreted my question as asking for justification to be a jerk, but that couldn't be further from the case. I just wanted to generate discussion about people's opinions regarding whether being aggressive or hateful towards voters because of their choice was just being a crappy person, or a legitimate punitive breach of military bearing and discipline.
When President Obama won, there was a deluge of complaints, the birther movement, a different brand of "Not my president." Now that President Trump has won office, there's similar sentiment. On either side, there is a lot of aggression being thrown around. Do you feel Service Members have a higher responsibility to be respectful of the American voters, regardless of their choice?
Respect of the POTUS is a given, we're expected, as service members, to render that. My question is more in line with respecting the fellow Americans that voted; it seems antithetical to me to be aggressive and hurtful to fellow Americans, especially those that have dissenting opinions from ours, for exercising one of the fundamental rights we swore to uphold and defend.
Election 2016
UCMJ
Leadership
Character
Office of the President (POTUS)
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 205
95
95
0
Although I've become very politically minded since leaving the service, I must say that while I was on active duty, I paid no attention to politics whatsoever. I cared a lot more about who my Commanding Officer was than who my POTUS was or which party controlled congress. My C.O. had a more direct impact on my quality of life, as I saw it at the time. Maybe this has changed in today's military....but I hope not. I don't believe it's a serviceman's or servicewoman's place to question the politics behind the orders they might receive......you don't not follow orders because you don't agree with the politics of the person that gave them to you. And you sure don't fail to back up your buddies because they voted for someone other than you did. Plenty of time for politics after you leave the service.....shouldn't be your concern while you're there.
(95)
(0)
SFC Charles McVey Sr.
SSG Merry Metzler - I was using your comment not as an attempt to deride you or your comment, but rather as a vehicle to explain how things have changed, and in many cases not for the good of the Military. You said nothing wrong, I was merely attempting to expound on what you wrote. Incidentally I originally enlisted in 1960 got out in 1973 and went back in in 1974 and finally retired in 2003.
(1)
(0)
SSG Merry Metzler
SFC Charles McVey Sr. - No offense taken. I joined in 75, 2 years active, then Reserves in until I retired 18 years later. Had an LT (West Pt Grad) that tried to Article 15 me for something I had permission for when I was active duty to I'm leery of to much reaction☺.
(1)
(0)
SFC Charles McVey Sr.
I am not a fan of Ring Knockers (West Point Grads) they are under the misguided idea that they are God's gift to the Army, and in Nam they got many good soldiers killed.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Gerry Tandberg
Any response regarding political opinion should include standing on higher ground. Berating, and name calling are strictly forboten. Most important is understanding your subject; generally that includes the law, constitution, history, the political operatives, the issues, trends, why you have your opinion, how to defend it, and most of all a calm demeanor. Don’t allow yourself to get rattled. If you abide by those guidelines there is no justification to be charged with violating anything under the UCMJ.
(0)
(0)
72
72
0
SSG Jim Beverly The entire time I served I kept my political opinions about our civilian leadership to myself. Both as enlisted and as a Commissioned Officer I took several oaths to support and follow the orders of those appointed above me (that includes the Civilian Leadership). From a leadership standpoint I felt it was important to keep my political opinions and opinions of those over me to myslef. If I had an issue with a boss in the military or in civilian life I addressed them one-on-one in private with my issues and tried to resolve them professionally. Most of the time that approach worked very well. I can't speak for others and their right to freedom of speech, but there are always consequences to bad mouthing the Commander in Chief in an open military forum. I have to refer to the JAG with regard to the UCMJ, but I believe there is an Article that covers something close to your question about comments made against leadership and partiipating in activies that would undermine the service branches. My recommendation is always maintaint he best military bearing and use common sense! If it doesn't pass the common sense test then walk away or keep your opinions to yourself! Just my 2 cents
(72)
(0)
SPC David Willis
SGT Charles Bartell - I've not assumed anything. I've simply stated facts if facts bother you that's not my problem. You are the one making an ass out of yourself for assuming I'm a Hillary supporter, I've not once typed out an assumption as to your political leanings. This far I've also kept if professional, but that seems to be a words that's slipped your mind maybe you should brush up on your NCO creed. I've tried to help you find the regulations and ended up doing your research for you as well. I suggest you go back and read exactly what I have written and apply some reading comprehension to it. You'll see that I never mentioned Trump or Clinton or assumed who you supported. I also never said you cant talk about politics. I simply said you cannot do it while uniformed in an official capacity.
(0)
(0)
SGT Charles Bartell
Let me ask you this how it it in your words ( Its not our job to keep you out of trouble ) How is it that I would get in truble for having a conversation about Politics ?
Also whate does the N.C.O. Creed have to do with any of this.
You contated me telling me what I can do, And this makes me so Terbrele because I ask you for the sourse of your facts and you give me a link to a Articale. Writen by some guy naned Rob Powers. That his contact link is no good. He also does not show witch part of any of the U.S. That he showed. That backed whate he was saying just like you.
Now if you took the joke about you calling the Clintons on me serious. I Can not belive that you where ever a grunt or in Cav. I was in 4/7 Hevy Cav. At Camp Garry Owen in Korea. Most of us joked like that all the time including CSM Bell. Now he was a Cav Man.
Now you can eather show me your prof of these Regs or Climb down of that Desk.
By the way having a conversanon with some one is not Berating them. If you take it take way you might whant to look that one up for your self too.
Also whate does the N.C.O. Creed have to do with any of this.
You contated me telling me what I can do, And this makes me so Terbrele because I ask you for the sourse of your facts and you give me a link to a Articale. Writen by some guy naned Rob Powers. That his contact link is no good. He also does not show witch part of any of the U.S. That he showed. That backed whate he was saying just like you.
Now if you took the joke about you calling the Clintons on me serious. I Can not belive that you where ever a grunt or in Cav. I was in 4/7 Hevy Cav. At Camp Garry Owen in Korea. Most of us joked like that all the time including CSM Bell. Now he was a Cav Man.
Now you can eather show me your prof of these Regs or Climb down of that Desk.
By the way having a conversanon with some one is not Berating them. If you take it take way you might whant to look that one up for your self too.
(0)
(0)
MSG Frederick Otero
Just some information to use or disregard. You may want to read over your statement as it needs edit. You will come across as a bit more professional and not as an angry ranter.
(3)
(0)
SSG Roy Kelly II
SGT Charles Bartell - You asked about regulations governing military members and politics. I Googled "military regulations about politics" and got About 143,000,000 results. The top two are :
** https://www.army.mil/article/71574/rules_restrict_political_activity_by_dod_personnel
** https://www.defense.gov/ask-us/faq/Article/1774809/what-is-the-policy-for-participating-in-political-campaigns/
Now to do your reading for you, because you have demonstrated that you want to be spoon-fed:
From the first article"DOD Directive 1344.10 applies to members of the armed forces, whether they serve on active duty, as members of the reserve components not on active duty, as National Guard members in a non-federal status and military retirees. ... These rules are designed to prevent military members' or federal civilian employees' participation in political activities that imply -- or even appear to imply -- official sponsorship, approval or endorsement, officials said. .... That's not to imply, however, that military members and civilian employees can't participate in politics. In fact, DOD has a longstanding policy of encouraging members to carry out the obligations of citizenship, officials said. DOD encourages its military and civilian members to register to vote and vote as they choose, they said. Both groups can sign nominating petitions for candidates and express their personal opinions about candidates and issues.
However, officials emphasized, they can do so only if they don't act as, or aren't perceived as, representatives of the armed forces in carrying out these activities."
From the second link:
"The Department of Defense (DOD) encourages all military and civilian personnel and their eligible family members to register and vote. Certain provisions on campaign participation, however, apply to federal employees and members of the armed forces.
As a matter of long-standing policy, military service members and federal employees acting in their official capacity may not engage in activities that associate the DOD with any partisan political campaign or elections, candidate, cause or issue. The limitations of participation can be found in DOD Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, and the Hatch Act.... The Hatch Act allows most federal employees to actively participate in political activities on their own time and outside of the federal workplace. There are, however, significant restrictions on fundraising, running for office in partisan election and using one's official authority in the political arena. "
Now, about your bearing, please refrain from misspellings, vulgarisms, and calling people names - It lowers our respect of you as a Senior NCO to something lower than a Private.
** https://www.army.mil/article/71574/rules_restrict_political_activity_by_dod_personnel
** https://www.defense.gov/ask-us/faq/Article/1774809/what-is-the-policy-for-participating-in-political-campaigns/
Now to do your reading for you, because you have demonstrated that you want to be spoon-fed:
From the first article"DOD Directive 1344.10 applies to members of the armed forces, whether they serve on active duty, as members of the reserve components not on active duty, as National Guard members in a non-federal status and military retirees. ... These rules are designed to prevent military members' or federal civilian employees' participation in political activities that imply -- or even appear to imply -- official sponsorship, approval or endorsement, officials said. .... That's not to imply, however, that military members and civilian employees can't participate in politics. In fact, DOD has a longstanding policy of encouraging members to carry out the obligations of citizenship, officials said. DOD encourages its military and civilian members to register to vote and vote as they choose, they said. Both groups can sign nominating petitions for candidates and express their personal opinions about candidates and issues.
However, officials emphasized, they can do so only if they don't act as, or aren't perceived as, representatives of the armed forces in carrying out these activities."
From the second link:
"The Department of Defense (DOD) encourages all military and civilian personnel and their eligible family members to register and vote. Certain provisions on campaign participation, however, apply to federal employees and members of the armed forces.
As a matter of long-standing policy, military service members and federal employees acting in their official capacity may not engage in activities that associate the DOD with any partisan political campaign or elections, candidate, cause or issue. The limitations of participation can be found in DOD Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, and the Hatch Act.... The Hatch Act allows most federal employees to actively participate in political activities on their own time and outside of the federal workplace. There are, however, significant restrictions on fundraising, running for office in partisan election and using one's official authority in the political arena. "
Now, about your bearing, please refrain from misspellings, vulgarisms, and calling people names - It lowers our respect of you as a Senior NCO to something lower than a Private.
Rules restrict political activity by DOD personnel
With election activity steadily picking up, defense officials are in the process of issuing regular election-year guidance to remind military and Defense Department civilians that they're subject to rules regulating their involvement in political act...
(1)
(0)
67
67
0
BLUF is this: Donald J. Trump is the President, like it or not. He is the Commander-In-Chief. Some didn't like it when Clinton, Bush, and Obama were inaugurated. This is irrelevant as a Servicemember. Read your oath and live it. Also relevant: Be certain you have read the regulations regarding servicemembers and protesting, particularly in uniform.
(67)
(0)
CWO2 James Mathews
PO3 John Wagner - and you think that I do not understand all that! Such was not the original question, and I have learned much since I was a PO3, and I fully understand the aspects of which you speak, or I would not be a MCPO or a temp. CWO2!!!
(3)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
CWO2 James Mathews - I wasn't looking to disrespect you brother.
Nor do I think you are unaware.. far from it. I simply was triggered by your comment into tossing in my two cents worth for those who may have needed a little more door knocking to get their attention.
If you hadn't made your comment I wouldn't have made mine. Thank you for giving me the impetus and inspiration Master Chief.
Nor do I think you are unaware.. far from it. I simply was triggered by your comment into tossing in my two cents worth for those who may have needed a little more door knocking to get their attention.
If you hadn't made your comment I wouldn't have made mine. Thank you for giving me the impetus and inspiration Master Chief.
(0)
(0)
LT Mike Folker
I tend to agree w/ the comment that you obey your immediate superiors; the CinC is busy delegating.
I guess these days it's pretty hard to avoid the opinions & even the reasons the ships suddenly move & troops suddenly muster. I do remember in October 1983, even our CO while we were at GTMO was at a loss to explain the invasion of Grenada 2 days after the Beirut Barracks bombing. We all assumed the former had to have something to do w/ the latter; altho of course it didn't, but we didn't know.
I guess these days it's pretty hard to avoid the opinions & even the reasons the ships suddenly move & troops suddenly muster. I do remember in October 1983, even our CO while we were at GTMO was at a loss to explain the invasion of Grenada 2 days after the Beirut Barracks bombing. We all assumed the former had to have something to do w/ the latter; altho of course it didn't, but we didn't know.
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
CWO2 James Mathews - I think, looking back, that a better explanation for me....regarding your potential feelings of being told what you already know..was that I had only been recently initiated to being seriously backstabbed from a direction which pointed towards friendly fire. Enemy infiltration is easy in those cases. I wear full body armor these days. I am still being educated in the long term problems caused by these attacks. Those were two years ago now.. I recently found myself unable to get a higher level of professional license... so to speak.. due to those attacks.. This will cost me at least a quarter million over the next three years before it is put far enough behind to pass muster. The pen can be mightier than the sword indeed. The pen doesn't have to be wielded by a righteous hand.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google