Should contemptuous remarks against the president be reported and punished?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:50:35 -0400

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is titled "Contempt Towards Officials." It states that, "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 keep a watchful eye on social media and have provided warnings to ACTIVE service members from time to time. Should repeat offenders receive UCMJ? Does this set a good or a bad precedent?

Response by AA Joseph Moody made Oct 19 at 2017 9:52 AM

AA Joseph Moody — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:52:12 -0400

Yes

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2017 9:56 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:56:36 -0400

I would say if some one in the chain of command has an ax to grind, this would be an easy way to get someone, just follow their social media and wait for the chance.

Response by SSgt Ryan Sylvester made Oct 19 at 2017 9:58 AM

SSgt Ryan Sylvester — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:58:33 -0400

I think this Article overreaches. It should be limited to the C-in-C, Secretary of Defense and the various branch Secretaries, and probably the State governor limited to National Guard officers, for the State to which they are serving. Because you shouldn't be disparaging toward your Chain of Command. But, since the Article is written the way it is, yeah... serving military do need to keep their comments in check.

Now, that said, they shouldn't be brought to heel for disagreements with policy and the like. That's outside the scope of the Article. This, to me, is straight attacks on the person. Voice disagreement with the policies, not the person.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2017 10:12 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:12:27 -0400

Guess I need to scrub my responses

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Oct 19 at 2017 10:14 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:14:30 -0400

Yes and No.

I believe that this should carry more weight with leadership. As troops, I feel we can hold our opinion, and speak openly about it, however should not be discussed in public (especially in uniform). Leaders also should not use their rank (and voice), to speak openly for (or against) the president.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Oct 19 at 2017 10:15 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:15:22 -0400

It's put there for a reason. It is one thing to disagree, but a different thing to threaten.

Response by MSgt Danny Hope made Oct 19 at 2017 10:18 AM

MSgt Danny Hope — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:18:28 -0400

No. Freedom of speech

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Oct 19 at 2017 10:39 AM

SFC Jim Ruether — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:39:11 -0400

Yes I think they should. I was in the service and had many negative opinions of Bill Clinton yet out of respect for his office I kept them to myself. When someone says some disparaging remarks about our Commander and Chief and shares them openly with others in their office, unit or other public forum they should be censored and/or punished.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Oct 19 at 2017 10:51 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:51:47 -0400

This Article is correctly directed toward "commissioned officers." Sometimes officers forget they are officers of the United States in addition to being Army officers or Air Force officers. They have a greater responsibility to set an example than their warrant and non-commissioned subordinates. The Article demands respect for the offices. This is the reason I kept my disagreements with the Democrat Presidents of my days in uniform to myself and equally my support for Republican Presidents quiet. I served all commanders-in-chief equally. Later as an Army Civilian I rarely discussed politics and discouraged my subordinates from doing so. It was too divisive. The Article should be enforced with care to prevent its application from becoming political.

Response by Sgt John Steinmeier made Oct 19 at 2017 11:19 AM

Sgt John Steinmeier — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:19:36 -0400

Absolutely repeat offenders should receive UCMJ.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Oct 19 at 2017 11:31 AM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:31:40 -0400

I understand the point of the article, however, I'd like to have a clear definition of what "contemptuous words" mean, specifically. Does disagreeing with policy count as contemptuous? Does stating known facts count as contemptuous? (IE, "the President admitted to sexual assault and therefore the President is a sex offender") {Please note, that's an EXAMPLE, not a statement.}

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 19 at 2017 11:43 AM

SGT David T. — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:43:09 -0400

Honestly, this one of the articles I would significantly change if I were the one in charge of it. My issue with it isn't the intent. I get that. It is the fact that it is so subjective that I have an issue with it. Same thing for 133 and 134. I think if an article cannot clearly explain what does and does not constitute a crime then it needs to be removed. Could an officer saying "I disagree with x policy or law" be interpreted as a violation? As written, I think so. Of course I am not a lawyer and haven't dug into the case law on it but it seems to be very subjective.

Response by SGT Jim Ramge, MBA made Oct 19 at 2017 12:10 PM

SGT Jim Ramge, MBA — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:10:56 -0400

Robert - It’s amazing how many individuals do not realize their words and actions can get them brought back on active duty for just such occasions - if we used the manual as it is to be observed. Being retired also keeps you held to certain standards, though rarely used until recent actions under the sexual nature. The issues I have is the laws that are in place are rarely used in both the military and civilian sectre and the almighty dollar seems to get folks out of trouble or provide extreme leniency. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen anyone below the Flag levels brought back into active duty to prove that notion - at least that have made the news!
How often have you seen a Sr. NCO or Field grade brought back since day the former SMA McKinney (though still active)? Maybe it is about time the standards are kept from O-10 down to E-1 to dignify the UCMJ manuals effects more to the ranks and show the civilians that we still handle the situation by the book. The unfortunate issues are rarely that Flag Officers are dropped to Field grade rank. They always seem to take care of their own in that fashion as an unwritten rule of thumb - but that is nothing more than an observation. It could be that realistically that the punishment didn’t warrant the heavier weighted demotion (I’m not a JAG Officer, nor do I know the criterium for such).
I do whole-heartedly agree with the aforementioned however that the UCMJ should be used, and more often. The Internet and social media isn’t a buffer between right and wrong and unfortunately, the system has let Soldiers go their own way with these actions, and are rarely punished and if so, it should be more widely disseminated. Drugs, Gangs, affiliations with certain groups should definitely be a chargeable action and of course, words towards the POTUS.
Things have appeared to have relaxed a bit for reasons unbeknownst to me towards these things unless I’m the physical nature from what we have observed in the news. Soldiers see their friends and family stating things and feel obliged to represent themselves in the conversations and more openly with few being charged. Things catch up with folks over time, and they can only play the wizard behind the curtain for only so long before the truth comes out and they are caught.
Quite frankly Robert, all it takes is one high profile case of stupidity to make the media/social media for folks to watch their mouths, tones and maybe do a little self-evaluation on garnered respect for the Office for which one holds, and not necessarily the individual whom holds that Office - and refrain from such in unprofessionalism!
Great posting kind Sir.
Thank you for leading the way during modern times and going against the grain on this one! Seems like as with uniforms, we have lost our Army traditions in many ways!

V/R,
Jim

Response by SP5 Peter Keane made Oct 19 at 2017 1:09 PM

SP5 Peter Keane — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:09:14 -0400

Yes, and it may have happened.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2017 1:32 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:32:31 -0400

In uniform, on duty, on base? Absolutely. Out of uniform, off-duty, off-base? I'd say no.

There are gray areas where more information would be needed. The deciding factor should be if the statements can be interpreted as being in an official capacity or official setting.

We as soldiers should feel free to discuss current events and issues, beliefs, opinions and just about anything else in our private lives, without fear of big brother. We should never do so when in positions of influence over others that may be construed in any way as trying to influence or encourage juniors to a particular viewpoint.

Its funny here on RP, when Obama was president many conservatives criticized him, name-called (Obummer, etc) and only liberals ever mentioned UCMJ. Now that Trump is president and liberals criticize him it is only conservatives who mention UCMJ.

RP is NOT a military forum. It is a PUBLIC forum aimed at attracting members of the military community. There is no chain of command here, nor is there any suggestion that anything on here is in any officially connected with the United States military. As such, the same rules apply as any other speech. For example, if a soldier on active duty, in uniform during the duty day at assigned duty location posts something political on here, it is subject to the military's rules governing political speech in uniform. For a soldier at home, on the couch with an open beer in civilian clothes off duty, it is covered by other rules for political speech that are far more relaxed.

I cannot wear my uniform to a campaign rally, or discuss my backing a candidate at a unit formation, but I can absolutely participate in a campaign rally in civilian clothes off duty, and can discuss candidates and officials to my heart's content in civilian clothes, off post, off duty with my friends.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Oct 19 at 2017 3:06 PM

PO2 Robert Aitchison — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:06:16 -0400

What's the standard for "contemptuous"? If you say "F*&K PRESIDENT <insert name> I HOPE HE"S ASSASSINATED" that's pretty cut and dry but what if the statement is more like "I believe the <insert name> Presidency represents the greatest threat to our nation since the Civil War"? or even "I don't approve of the job that President <insert name> is doing and I hope that he's voted out of office in the next election"?

I agree active service members should be more careful about what they say including/especially over social media. I've seen active duty service members make statements about both the current and the previous President that would IMO warrant an article 88 charge.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Oct 19 at 2017 3:34 PM

LTC John Wilson — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:34:39 -0400

It depends... Is the President or any other officials protected under Article 88 in this hypothetical involved in an offense that falls under the auspices Article 94 (we're they subject to the UCMJ)? Would failure to speak out place the Service Member in violation of Article 94 if they failed to speak out?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2017 1:24 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:24:01 -0400

You signed the dotted line you agreed to the rules. I wouldn't punish first off, I would counsel the individual and let them know they can get hemmed up because of it. I had a Master Sergeant explain it pretty well, "You're allowed to have an opinion, the Army does not have an opinion." In short, don't disgrace the Service or the Uniform.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Oct 20 at 2017 1:42 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:42:49 -0400

Under the assumption that the military has jurisdiction and a crime has been committed?

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Oct 20 at 2017 6:22 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:22:27 -0400

What about those who fail to bow to the Emperors Hat

Response by CH (COL) Theron Gunn made Oct 20 at 2017 11:12 PM

CH (COL) Theron Gunn — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 23:12:43 -0400

What constitutes "contemptuous words" Who decides if words are contemptuous?

Response by CPO Jerry Lawrence made Oct 21 at 2017 2:04 PM

CPO Jerry Lawrence — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 14:04:48 -0400

The last I heard the military is not a democracy. Although, good debate about our elected officials is good for the soul and don't forget the warriors that walk the line are still allowed to voice their opinions at least once every year or two when they check a box at the voting booth. They must be restrained/disciplined in public forums.....after all this is not the NFL.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Nov 25 at 2017 10:44 AM

PVT Raymond Lopez — Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:44:17 -0500

The operative words are "Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is titled "Contempt Towards Officials." It states that, "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 keep a watchful eye on social media and have provided warnings to ACTIVE service members from time to time. Should repeat offenders receive UCMJ? Does this set a good or a bad precedent?" Now you why I refused several offers of battlefield commissions and an appointment to a service academy.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Nov 25 at 2017 11:15 AM

PVT Raymond Lopez — Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:15:32 -0500

If at any time you see me write “I don’t want to be mean” you can start to laugh because it is a damned lie of course I am going to be mean that is just who I am!! I know God is going to punish me for that lie so I keep wondering what the burst radius on a bolt of lightning is. As retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer with a quarter of a century of service in federal law enforcement alone. I am sick and tired of people who pontificate on the law when they are totally clueless about the law. When I first swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and enforce the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a family friend who held a minor judicial positon. He was Chief Justice of Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania told me in no uncertain terms “Ray don’t you dare do anything you cannot back up with Purdon’s.” For those of you who are in ignorance of this it is "Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated," and includes the text of statutes, as well as cross-references, footnotes, and commentary developed over two centuries. The federal version The Code of Laws of the United States of America in one case my partner and I made an arrest that went all the to the Supreme Court before our actions were finally upheld.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2017 7:57 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Nov 2017 19:57:22 -0500

Definitely for those serving, and especially those in positions of leadership. Set the example applies, as does the UCMJ. For those no longer serving it still reflects on the service, whether it's a violation or not, and should be considered by those involved. Free speech is a right but needs to be given all due diligence. Those that have not served look at divisive statements from former AD members, and consider them as a representation of the services in general. Whether that's accurate or fair or not, it still exists IMO. For that reason alone I personally believe that former members should show maturity and restraint with comments about our civilian leadership. There is nothing wrong with expressing opinions but they should be voiced in a measured and mature manner that gets the point across without being blatantly disrespectful. Just my opinion and others may understandably disagree.