How do you feel about currently serving military who bash the President on social media?

He is the Commander In Chief. He is my bosses boss, uppermost in my chain of command. I will respect him and the rank that he carries. Most "changes" that people hate come directly from Congress and not the President. Most of the population is severely under educated on how exactly the government process works. Sure, you may not like a policy that the President endorses or tries to pass, but try to remember that it is a possible solution to an already existing problem. Otherwise the policy would not have been created. Instead of complaining why not either a.) embrace the change and at least try to make it work or b.) vote against it and use your governmental powers to do what you can. Trying to make others look bad, you make yourself look worse.

I will sum my thoughts on this topic with the following: Officers-UCMJ Article 88, Enlisted-UCMJ Article 134. Frankly, who the CinC is shouldn't matter, to quote the late Roy Bohem in a meeting with them President Kennedy "I didn't vote for you sir, but I'll die for you"

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. While I'm duty-bound to carry out the lawful orders of those appointed over me (including the POTUS) that doesn't mean I have to agree with their positions or policies. If you want to voice your opinion, as long as it's not on national television, I don't have a problem with that.

IMHO, those who are currently on active duty would be well advised to keep their comments as personal statements and not make any reference to their military rank and/or status, simply as protection for themselves. Can you imagine any unit where members are free to criticize or "bash" their unit commander?

What is "Bashing?"
I feel like it is completely appropriate to be intelligently critical of the president when he deserves it.

As it pertains to non-military issues, I think you have a right to voice your opinion like any free-citizen.

As it pertains to military matters a certain amount of decorum must be employed and you should be mindful of who might see your comment, but the criticism in and of itself isn't wrong.

The above applies to service members. For veterans, we are free to criticize away as we see fit.

You raise an interesting question, and I hope this is not too much of a thread hijack, but I would be very interested to hear others expound on the legal perspective on this subject as it pertains to Guardsmen. Here’s my take:

While UCMJ may apply to Service Members who are on or off duty in the Federal service, UCMJ does NOT apply to National Guardsmen unless activated under Title 10 Orders. Guardsmen are under Title 32 STATE orders one weekend a month and are in a non-duty status for 90% of the month (32 U.S.C. § 502 (2000))

And now... the rest of the story...

Federal law authorizes each state National Guard to administer a military justice program similar to that of the UCMJ (32 U.S.C.S. §§ 326–327) It is up to the diverse State Military Justice Programs to determine content, execution and the punishments to be conferred through the MJP.

While the majority of States have an MJP analogous to UCMJ, since most transgressions occur outside of State duty, most offenses are deferred to civil authorities for adjudication.

As an example, suppose a theoretical Guardsman posts “Potus is a big-fat-meanie” on their Facepage or Mybook or whatever the kids are using these days... IF the post was made by the Guardsmen in a non-duty status, does ANYONE have jurisdiction? And IF they have jurisdiction, what is the probability that 1: The post will be seen, 2: The post will be connected in some way to the National Guard, 3: The State MJP will perceive jurisdiction and 4: The State MJP will desire to invest human capital in investigation and prosecution and 5: ANYTHING will actually ever happen?

In the end, this is less a question of what one CAN do, but what one SHOULD do. I advise my Soldiers to remember that they are always ambassadors of the Military, and more importantly, the Guard. Many times, the exercise of personal freedom creates collective consequences. There is an element of the public that believes one person speaking in uniform reflects ALL members of the military. There is also an element in the Active component that believes ONE act by a Guardsmen represents ALL Guardsmen. I tell my Soldiers therefore that while they perhaps have more personal freedom than the Active military, they also have more professional responsibilities to their brothers and sisters in the Active Reserve, and Guard components.

In the end it is not a matter of UCMJ. In 99.99999% of cases involving military want-wittery: The Honorable Squad Leader will assume the bench in the High Court of Many Push Ups and the individual will eventually lack the arm strength to text for several days.

CAVEAT: While I am not a Lawyer or a JAG, I was once a Specialist and therefore have a pretty firm grasp on this sort of thing…

Too easy to take the regimental PME answer of No, to negatively comment on social media about the President is inappropriate and wrong. Too easy, and not the right answer, even according to the JAG. Before the web we had the club, divided by E's, O's and even level of rank. This permitted much discussion about the condition of the world, the force, the unit. The clubs are inconsequential anymore. Social media is how people communicate anymore, it is the club or the living room where we bitch, vent, bemoan, or just share our opinions. Let me state, I am ok with service members using social media to express their opinions both political and social. I do believe we have responsibilities to not represent our opinions as that of the service, the gov't, etc. We have a responsibility to practice keeping our social pages as secure as possible from those who don't personally know us. Far too many are quick to accept any "friend" request. What one says on their personal page to be shared amongst their friends is different than what might express on a group page (such as this). We as service members have mitigated our rights by choosing to serve, but that doesn't mean we've relinquished them to become automatons for which ever commander we currently serve or which party is in the majority of our gov't. Also, I feel, there is a difference between venting and subversion. I do not see the term President and Commander in Chief as universally synonymous in restraining our (service member's) opinions or comments when the subject is social policies. They are different roles performed in parallel. If it effects me in my military duties I am far more restrictive of who I speak with. If it effects me as a citizen I will share my opinion. If I do it on a site such as this it won't include "That SOB..." How any mature service member feels about what another member says on social media about the President, or other governmental leaders (or even military leadership) needs to take the full picture into account. If the answer is as service members we are to be apolitical at all times then maybe we shouldn't be able to say anything positive or negative about governmental leadership and conversely they should not be allowed to use us as back drops for photo-op speaking events. It's ok for us to be professional military and citizens.

Troops need and outlet, it used to be the club (it was divided by O's, E's and leadership levels for a reason) but the clubs are fairly outdated. Social media can be like speaking out in public, or like having a discussion with friends in your home. It depends on how liberal you are in the use of the "friend" button. Next, how does the person represent themselves on social media, by their service, rank, position, or by their name? These are variables that make the subject less clear cut. The next variable that should be considered, is the troop being negative about the President or the Commander in Chief. And before you jump right on it's the same...is it? For those who jump immediately on the PME answer of "No, it is disrespectful and inappropriate for a service member to be negative about the President." it's time for some critical thinking. If a service member is not to say anything negative about the President, they should also not be able to say anything positive about the President. And since we are expected to be apolitical, maybe all politicians should be restricted from using us as backdrops for photo-op speaking tours when discussing anything other than matters of direct military significance? Troops, in the role of representing themselves as service members should not publicly slander command decisions by their commanders or the Commander. However, I feel, Social, political, and military decisions should be considered separate. To be "actionable", as the new catch phrase goes, there has to be more than just the troop said something bad about the President (remember the rule covers prior Presidents also). Yes, as a service member I understand I have lost, or in degrees mitigated, many of my rights. But if I do or do not like the policies of a President as they effect me as a citizen, I have the right to share those feelings with friends. I have the responsibility to represent myself as me the citizen, not as me the service member. Let's remember one very important concept, we as United States service members take an oath to the Constitution of the United States first and foremost. To all others above us in command we have within that oath that we will follow their (lawful) orders.

I agree that it is disrespectful and kinda douchey but the only oath I remember taking was to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed above me...Article 88 of the UCMJ only applies to Commissioned Officers. So while a dick move, i personally have bigger fish to fry. If I got upset at every currently serving military member who was a dick I would be angry at half the service.

Article 88 - "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

I'll say this, I will not disrespect the Commander and Chief, but I feel we are headed in the wrong direction as a country and a global leader.