Posted on Oct 1, 2014
Speaking against POTUS violates UCMJ Article 88 and 134. Why do you think it's ok?
44.3K
101
37
Also: UCMJ applies to retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 10 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
Recently I've been hearing countless remarks, and seeing posts from soldiers and veterans alike. Down talking our commander in chief. How do you feel about this? Should this be allowed within our ranks? Does freedom of speech really play a part?<br><br>
Responses: 10
The question of the applicability of Article 88–which bans contemptuous speech directed at superiors and civilian leaders - is complicated. There are no cases of attempted prosecutions of retired personnel for violating this article. The standard for preferring such charges against a retiree is different from the one required to accuse active duty officers. To prosecute a retired officer, the military would have to show that the words used “create a clear and present danger” leading to evils “that Congress has a right to prevent.” This hurdle is much higher than the requirement to show for active duty officers that “the speech interferes with . . . the orderly accomplishment of the mission or presents a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops.”
I don't mean to offend, nor is my intent to discount the importance of the topic, but I believe this has been discussed to near death. Here are two similar threads on the same topic:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/directly-criticizing-the-president-on-rallypoint
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/veterans-or-soldiers-targeting-our-president
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/directly-criticizing-the-president-on-rallypoint
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/veterans-or-soldiers-targeting-our-president
Directly criticizing the President on RallyPoint. | RallyPoint
I understand it is very tempting to fall into the social media trap when discussing topics we are passionate about. I've done it a couple of times and thought better of it later. That being said, it is very undisciplined for an active member of the armed services to offer disrespectful comments about the President of the United States. This is especially inadvisable on a social network set aside for service members and veterans. Most of us are...
GySgt Joe Strong
In my, potentially flawed, memory, during my adult years; this issue only arises under Democratic Presidents. It seems that Republican Presidents have been willing and able to tolerate personal disagreements with their policies as long as their orders were carried out. However there were years I served under Democratic Presidents where I was made to feel very aware that ANY comment, ANYWHERE, IN or OUT of uniform was putting me on thin ice. I've always been one to respect the Office of anyone appointed over me at any level, but that never extended and in my belief isn't supposed to carry over to a frank evaluation of the person wearing those stripes, insignia, or seated in that elected position. If it were not intended to be so, I do not believe the requirement to disobey unlawful orders would even be in the code, much less even thought of to be there. Thoughtfulness is a requirement, not simply blind obedience.
As with each time this has been previously discussed, it appears to be brought up in the same context, which is to say that "speaking against" the President is bad and punishable. It also seems that in many minds, any disagreement with the President constitutes contempt. Not true.
We do not have a King in the United States, we have a President. Presidents are not above the law, nor are they above being questioned or second guessed. Yes, you are in the Military, and you are subject to the UCMJ, and yes, the UCMJ does dictate that you remain respectful in your disagreement, but it doesn't take away your right to disagree. The following is an excerpt from a legal explanation of Article 88:
"It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article."
Article 134 is another story. You can pretty much be charged with anything for any reason under that one....but keep in mind: It does have to have SOME legal basis.
We do not have a King in the United States, we have a President. Presidents are not above the law, nor are they above being questioned or second guessed. Yes, you are in the Military, and you are subject to the UCMJ, and yes, the UCMJ does dictate that you remain respectful in your disagreement, but it doesn't take away your right to disagree. The following is an excerpt from a legal explanation of Article 88:
"It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article."
Article 134 is another story. You can pretty much be charged with anything for any reason under that one....but keep in mind: It does have to have SOME legal basis.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
you took the words out of my mouth. I agree this was only in place if a retired officer was to use their former status to achieve a coups or any act to overtly try to dismantle the government. There are plenty former officers that are senators and congressman who would be in jail if this were applied otherwise.
Service does LIMIT 1st amendment rights (as it should). It does not eliminate them.
COL sir, what about the junior enlisted that frequent this site. Do you think a senior officer using contemptuous words against the President contributes to good order and discipline?
I was not advocating it, I was discussing the difference between the prohibition for active versus retired personnel.