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?
81.5K
846
417
68
68
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 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 205
0
0
0
I'd say it depends.
It depends upon if the person is bringing discredit upon the military.
So is it happening in he office? then yes
Happening while the SM is in uniform? then yes
Happening at some sort of protest or public event where the SM publicly identifies as military? Then yes.
Happening at a grocery store or gas station while the SM is in civilian clothes and not identifying themselves as military? then no.
Happening at a family gatheringg with your liberal idiot brother in law? then no (as long as you don't beat his ass)
It depends upon if the person is bringing discredit upon the military.
So is it happening in he office? then yes
Happening while the SM is in uniform? then yes
Happening at some sort of protest or public event where the SM publicly identifies as military? Then yes.
Happening at a grocery store or gas station while the SM is in civilian clothes and not identifying themselves as military? then no.
Happening at a family gatheringg with your liberal idiot brother in law? then no (as long as you don't beat his ass)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As a service member, I pay no attention to politics whatsoever. There are more pressing things to be concerned with than worrying about who is in the White House. A company commander is far more influential than who is in the oval office. As service members, we have no opinion of the POTUS, he's or commander in chief regardless of who he is. There is no time or energy to question the orders given from all the way at the top. Energy should be spent on influencing and developing leaders at the tactical level, and keeping our military the best there is - and its people that make that happen. Politics has no place in the military.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Steven Prestridge
LT, Plato said it best when he stated, "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors". You should pay attention to politics because you are an instrument of political policy. As an officer, you should always maintain bearing, never deride the CIC publicly, but always find time to discuss with fellow officers the political situations facing the country. These talks should be done away from your troops, and preferably with a few beers. It is important that you develop a guiding political philosophy, because by understanding politics, you can predict future possibilities.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Mr. Prestridge, thank you for your input. I understand that as a lieutenant, I still have a lot of growth to go through. That Plato quote is quite true, and you're right, it does warrant discussion. I have never thought about my role as a "instrument of political policy" in such context before, but its quite remarkable. More so now with the modern operating environment, soldiers are indeed diplomats for the US. I try to instill in my soldiers that their actions, while in uniform, can have both negative and positive consequences. Thank you for enlightening me.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Honestly, anyone on the Federal payroll shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. I don't have any experience with conduct unbecoming due to that being an officer only infraction. A service member is not subject to the Hatch Act, but the essence of it is captured in DoDD 1344.10 so they need to be careful on how they discuss politics. My general rule was to avoid discussions of politics at work except to encourage my subordinates to vote. Religion and politics tend to be quite heated at times and should be avoided in the workplace as they are irrelevant to the mission.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jim Beverly
"Conduct unbecoming" may have been the wrong terminology, but I meant Article 134, which applies to everyone; officers and enlisted alike. I agree with your response though, and appreciate your input :)
(0)
(0)
SGT David T.
SSG Jim Beverly - I always hated that article due to its subjective nature lol. I always tried to avoid using it because most of the time there was a more appropriate article I could cite.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
because she was a Sec State there is a possible Issue under Article 92... I Think that's it...
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
1stSgt Chris Schmidt - , I see where you blocked me on Facebook, but in a private message to me, you did not allow my response. Since you are still reading this threat, I hope you will read this:
Chris, I'm sorry you feel that way. I am also dealing with my own issues. I'm not eligible for the lung transplant, so my future is extremely limited, having been told that the disease process will not stop. I have essentially been told that I look forward to worsening pain and breathing for the short time I have left. I deal with nightly problems of visions of men who I watched die, and the curses that come with it.
Everyone here has problems, but you are the only one that chose to attack another veteran.
Telling or insinuating to someone that they will be the cause of your relapse, and implying you may commit suicide is uncool my friend.
I understand you are challenged, but all you had to do was not read her posts. It is that simple. Hundreds of vets on RallyPoint converse with Christine every day, many who also deal with PTSD and TBI with injuries impairing their thought process, and yet they are still here.
You have to ask yourself why other people who are suffering from the same, and in some cases worse diseases and injuries than yourself, are able to handle Christine while you can't.
You simply could choose not to read her posts, but instead wanted to begin an attack and accusations.
I am sorry you feel the way you do, but I assure you the easiest way would be just to ignore her and only read those things that make you feel good.
Once again, telling another veteran that they will be responsible for anything bad that will happen to you is, in my opinion, one of the most painful and potentially devastating act a veteran could do.
Chris, I'm sorry you feel that way. I am also dealing with my own issues. I'm not eligible for the lung transplant, so my future is extremely limited, having been told that the disease process will not stop. I have essentially been told that I look forward to worsening pain and breathing for the short time I have left. I deal with nightly problems of visions of men who I watched die, and the curses that come with it.
Everyone here has problems, but you are the only one that chose to attack another veteran.
Telling or insinuating to someone that they will be the cause of your relapse, and implying you may commit suicide is uncool my friend.
I understand you are challenged, but all you had to do was not read her posts. It is that simple. Hundreds of vets on RallyPoint converse with Christine every day, many who also deal with PTSD and TBI with injuries impairing their thought process, and yet they are still here.
You have to ask yourself why other people who are suffering from the same, and in some cases worse diseases and injuries than yourself, are able to handle Christine while you can't.
You simply could choose not to read her posts, but instead wanted to begin an attack and accusations.
I am sorry you feel the way you do, but I assure you the easiest way would be just to ignore her and only read those things that make you feel good.
Once again, telling another veteran that they will be responsible for anything bad that will happen to you is, in my opinion, one of the most painful and potentially devastating act a veteran could do.
(1)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
1stSgt Chris Schmidt - it may best for all if you take a time out from social media. The last thing anyone wants to see is to see someone's PTSD treatment impacted by the virtual world. Some time away, focusing on your quality of life would probably be more beneficial and then of course you would be welcomed back once you and your doctors feel things are at a good point with you.
(2)
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
SGT Michael Thorin - You were not wrong. I felt the exact same thing; he attacked from out of nowhere on a comment that basically said Christine felt HRC and Obama were treated poorly. Totally uncalled for, whether PTSD was a factor or not.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google