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?
81.6K
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
Since we seem to have turned into a nation of whiney babies if my candidate didn't win, I would and have decided that keeping one's choice to themselves seems to be the way to go especially in the workplace.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There has be pretty ugly things happen since the election. Is it me but there has been more trouble with riots, marches, blocking highways etc. That is after President Trump election. The progressives took this very hard and full of hate. Even the Democrats are talking impeachment before a month was over. Looking for Constitutional ways to take him out. The refugee order that the court stopped was said to be political.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You are certainly allowed to an opinion BUT...(and there always is one) one must be judicious in how and where said opinions are expressed. In the barracks among friends or in the housing area at a neighborhood get together is one thing. And you can be as direct and aggressive as you wish. Once you change into a uniform, that all changes. You are now a visible representative of the United States. Your words and actions mean things and they do have consequences. Social media is an exception. You have no absolute right to free speech as your words can come back and bite your balls off. There is not a week goes by I don't see where someone let his or her mouth overload their @$$ and do or say something that will get them in deep...VERY deep, to the point of facing NJP, Court Martial, loss of a security clearance or worse.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't think that political conversations belongs in the workplace by any means, it may cause tension or worse. In reference to the social media I find that a little more difficult to address. If you have friends on social media that are in your unit, company etc then it should be immediately understood that things may be posted that could cause conflict or controversy. I do also however believe that as a soldier ( especially at my rank) I do not have the same freedom of speech as my civilian peers. It's simply a sacrifice I must accept since the day I rose my right hand. Perhaps I am in the minority with these ideals, but it hasn't done me wrong.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Service members need to tread lightly. It's Art134. It's Art88 for commissioned officers. It may even be Art 92. It is the second order sacrifices you make when you swear the oath. Don't Be that guy. There was a time when the apolitical nature of the service was the model of dignity and how won serves the nation and the constitution and by extension, the people of the United States.
This very simple tenant of service is what separates the US from other countries, roiling in military coups, counter coups, purges, dysfunctional militaries hobbled to keep them from being a threat, political figureheads with military juntas, and the general lack of human rights and justice. Other countries have governments collapse and rise so frequently their currency is worthless and stability non-existent. It is that stability that makes us strong and sets conditions for prosperity and harmony. It is all, at the end a fragile whisper because it is an idea. An idea that only has hold because we believe it.
This very simple tenant of service is what separates the US from other countries, roiling in military coups, counter coups, purges, dysfunctional militaries hobbled to keep them from being a threat, political figureheads with military juntas, and the general lack of human rights and justice. Other countries have governments collapse and rise so frequently their currency is worthless and stability non-existent. It is that stability that makes us strong and sets conditions for prosperity and harmony. It is all, at the end a fragile whisper because it is an idea. An idea that only has hold because we believe it.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jim Beverly
Just to be clear, I'm not asking for permission to be a dick, sir :) It's hard to gauge the tone of your response via simple text, but I hope you didn't perceive my question as an attempt to justify something I had actually done. I see a lot of service members on social media being... less than respectful, and I was curious if it was, in fact, a breach of proper conduct. I always try to keep my words respectful and selective; if I even speak out at all.
(0)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
SSG Jim Beverly - didn't read anything into your question. Just participating in the thread. A lot of service members have been increasingly out there on social media and it can very well be a career killer.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Soldiers get into arguments, it happens. At the end of the day though we'd still throw rounds down range for each other. So my question is how bad are the arguments getting? Are people disregarding rank? Mistreating their juniors?
Discussion, even in disagreement, even very heated disagreement is fine but there is a line we don't cross.
Discussion, even in disagreement, even very heated disagreement is fine but there is a line we don't cross.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SSG Jim Beverly The way we treat others should be covered by Army Values.
As others have said, it does not matter who the POTUS is, as we serve at the pleasure of the president, at least once we are commissioned... I served from Carter to Obama, and although I had disdain for things they did, they were still the boss, and the Commander-In-Chief, so my opinion mattered not. That said, no one in the military should bad mouth any president - that is punishable under the UCMJ, nor should we ever berate our peers because of who you voted for. The later is not a violation of the UCMJ, nor should it be. What is happening now, is folks who voted for President Trump, who endured 8 years of President Obama, are excited, and are sticking in the eyes of everyone who they perceive did the same in 08 and 12. There was a lot of gloating in 08 and 12, and the president himself said "elections have consequences." And, that they do.
As others have said, it does not matter who the POTUS is, as we serve at the pleasure of the president, at least once we are commissioned... I served from Carter to Obama, and although I had disdain for things they did, they were still the boss, and the Commander-In-Chief, so my opinion mattered not. That said, no one in the military should bad mouth any president - that is punishable under the UCMJ, nor should we ever berate our peers because of who you voted for. The later is not a violation of the UCMJ, nor should it be. What is happening now, is folks who voted for President Trump, who endured 8 years of President Obama, are excited, and are sticking in the eyes of everyone who they perceive did the same in 08 and 12. There was a lot of gloating in 08 and 12, and the president himself said "elections have consequences." And, that they do.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jim Beverly
I appreciate the input, sir. The nature of my question wasn't so much badmouthing the POTUS himself, but when it's directed at the voters themselves; fellow citizens that are treated like garbage just because they cast their vote for a different person.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
SSG Jim Beverly - Roger.... That should be not allowed.... But, that is covered by common sense. Living by Army Values covers this. Folks should all read this:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12176421-how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-in-the-digital-age
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12176421-how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-in-the-digital-age
How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Age
AN UP-TO-THE -MINUTE ADAPTATI ON OF DALE CARNEGIE ’S TI MELE SS PRESCRIPTI ONS FOR THE DIGITAL AGE DALE CARNEGIE’s commonsense approach t...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Like everyone said before not in our job title to question orders. Make sure you read the regulations on everything within your skill level and try to understand at least to levels higher and you will be fine.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As Service Members there are certain freedoms we give up as a consequence of that service. And additional obligations that a regular citizen is not beholden to. That's what made, and makes, us special. One of those obligations - and as far as I'm concerned, honors - was the oath we swore to defend this country, it's citizens and the Constitution. As such, your political opinions should be kept to yourself. As far as UCMJ, it would depend on the nature of the conversation and to whom it was directed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Not so difficult a question, actually. The U.S. Constitution gives all of us the right of free association, and in equal measure we have a locked-in-stone right to our individual opinions. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves by dancing and demonstrating in the streets, let them...it brings me no harm. Any service member in any branch of the several services may do so as well, but NOT in uniform. Doing so sends the wrong message, appearing to lend support of the military to such. The services are tied by allegiance to the Office of the President of the U.S., and not to any individual cause. We are, after all, a democracy and not a dictatorship.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Actually we are NOT a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.
A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
A Constitutional Republic protects the minority from the majority.
A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
A Constitutional Republic protects the minority from the majority.
(1)
(0)
SPC Patrick Caldwell
Unfortunately, true democracy cannot be achieved unless we as human beings can somehow push aside the inherent greed running rampant in our personalities. The crux of the matter is that at least one man at any one time will have the mindset that, "All men are equal, but some are more equal than others".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google