What is the general consensus about posting negative commentary about the POTUS by enlisted vs. commisioned?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:20:58 -0400

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Apr 26 at 2015 10:31 PM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:31:55 -0400

The POTUS is the Commander-In-Chief. Agree or disagree. No military member should be posting negative comments

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 10:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:54:17 -0400

Details don't matter, if you are a currently serving service member then disrespect towards the Commander in Chief is unacceptable. You don't have the freedom of speech to be disrespectful to your first line supervisor, so why would anyone feel like the higher up the food chain they move the more acceptable their behavior becomes?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 10:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:59:25 -0400

If you are a civilian say what you will. As a military member we should not post ill will about the POTUS. Disagreeing with him can be touchy because the lower ranks could see it as a sign of disrespect. As always be careful about what you post because it could bite you in the butt. Thats why i stick to the idea of not posting anything about The President. I will speak neither good nor bad of the man because both could be taken the wrong way.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 11:12 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:12:33 -0400

We aren't paid for our opinions of POTUS. Voicing those opinions in a public forum is one of those freedoms we sacrifice when serving our country. Bottom line.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Apr 26 at 2015 11:35 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:35:35 -0400

You can have your opinions, but as someone who took their oaths, keep your opinions to yourself.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Apr 26 at 2015 11:37 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:37:45 -0400

MSG David Frye, POTUS is
C in C. Therefore any person in the position is sacrosanct from negatory comments by the military.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Apr 27 at 2015 12:21 AM

SGT John Wesley — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:21:13 -0400

I'm just a Veteran, but I still feel uncomfortable when I see negative comments about our CiC. I feel that there is so much negativity spewing about our recent Presidents, Obama, Bush & Clinton.

For those of you who are on either side of the political minefield, the loss of respect towards the office of POTUS is bringing our country down. Have your debate, but learn to be respectful. Those guys on Fox and CNN get paid to be a$$holes, doesn't mean you have to imitate them.

For those of you in uniform, suck it up buttercup, they can only serve for two terms.... Obey your oath.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 12:53 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:53:28 -0400

I agree with MAJ Carl Ballinger that it depends, but that is only for commentary. What you post is permanent, and can be interpreted however the reader wants to, what you say has a shelf-life and is not nearly as open to interpretation as online thought.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 12:54 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:54:24 -0400

I am sick and tired of this thread because it never ends. Every couple of weeks and I am beginning to get the feeling that this is no accident. Kapisch?

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Apr 27 at 2015 3:14 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 03:14:18 -0400

Military folks who served before you earned YOUR right to Free Speech, and in turn, your service does the same for folks after you.

There is zero need to get expansive on this. Zero.

However, an observation: The very fact some folks even feel any need to pose the question---speaks volumes.

My Oath was about the support and defense of the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Not the election results of a 50.1+ % of people who are more about Exploiting than Contributing to this once great Nation.

Semper Fi

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 4:17 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 04:17:41 -0400

It is never acceptable for a military member to degrade the President, while in uniform or using their position in the military. He is the top of the chain of command.

That being said, critisism that is resprectful should be allowed.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 7:09 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 07:09:24 -0400

Thank you all for your thoughts, votes, and commentary. Have a great day! Oh, and by the way...I am a human and not a fake profile designed to "catch" people making nasty remarks.

Response by SSG Steven Borders made Apr 27 at 2015 8:37 AM

SSG Steven Borders — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:37:08 -0400

He is our commander and chief. Negative comments should not be posted about him. Unless you are out the military. No matter how you feel about him.

I have my own beliefs and you will never see any type of post about POTUS or VPOTUS. I just plain don't post anything. Only my wife really knows how I feel.

Just my two cents.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 27 at 2015 9:18 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:18:01 -0400

1) If you wouldn't say it to their face, don't say it behind their back. It's just bad form, and civilized people don't do that.

2) Although he doesn't wear a uniform, he outranks us, and "talking smack" while we wear uniform is Disrespect, and punishable by the UCMJ.

3) There is no need to tear others down. Regardless of our opinions about others, don't attack the man, attack the actions, attack the stance, attack the opinions. But going after the man is a logical fallacy (Ad hominen). If you can't logically tear up his arguments, actions, or opinions.. then your case is probably more shoddy than his is.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 27 at 2015 12:27 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:27:55 -0400

Unacceptable for anyone subject to UCMJ.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Apr 27 at 2015 1:04 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:04:49 -0400

Don't forget, we serve the Constitution first. The fact that our C-in-C is an elected official is part of this Constitutional process. That being said, you (on active duty) can speak quietly in your circles. However, if you wearing our uniform, regardless of rank, the tax-payers are expecting unwavering leadership. We may not like our elected leaders. But, they reflect the will of the American citizen. As a uniformed military, you are expected to execute the will of the people.

Now that I hold a DD-214, I can speak a little more freely. However, I expect to be held accountable for my statements/actions. Social media has changed the means by which one can express themselves (to include RallyPoint). However, we all have a responsibility to the Constitution --and ourselves. Should I disagree with my civilian leadership, I can vote. I encourage active duty members to do the same. Vocalize yourself with your vote. Hell, it's one of the many things for which you (well, "we") have all fought.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Apr 27 at 2015 1:19 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:19:30 -0400

Unfortunately, the military member is standing up for the constitution....freedom of speech is #1 on the list.... with that being said, we do NOT have the same freedom that civilians do....or do we?

Military or civilian, every action has some type of reaction... Every military member can say/write exactly what they want on any topic, including the POTUS.... HOWEVER: there are consequences. Civilian says "POTUS IS _____________" and nothing happens due to freedom of speech.... Military member says "POTUS IS ______________" and something happens.... why? What about "freedom of speech"??

Freedom of speech was never infringed on....member expressed their thoughts and feelings! Problem is that they were talking about their boss. Say a Civilian is overheard saying the same thing, but it is about the CEO of their company.....bet they get sacked!! Our boss is the POTUS (good, bad, indifferent). That is a fact. You CAN say what you want about him/her....HOWEVER, you must be ready to handle any/all consequences of your statements. Civilian may speak about the POTUS as a political topic/target, but the POTUS is not in their chain of command...it is a company/corporation. They would probably receive similar treatment if they talked about the Civilian leadership of their company in the same way. Just like we can talk as much smack about "CEO of XXX company" with no fear of retribution.

With this being said, I feel it is Unacceptable for either...however, if you choose to, you are also choosing to abide by the consequences.

Response by SFC Joseph James made Apr 27 at 2015 6:19 PM

SFC Joseph James — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:19:05 -0400

First amendment rights don't exist in the military. Chaos in the ranks if they did.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 7:21 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:21:53 -0400

Forget the fact the the POTUS is a civilian who depending on which party you prefer, you may or may not like. The POTUS is still in your chain of command! I dare anyone to pop onto any social network and start blasting their CO or senior enlisted. You don't do that, and should be held accountable if you do, the POTUS is no different. You can be critical of policy, but some of the commentary (if you could call it that) I see online from a few servicemembers disgusts me. That sets a bad tone, a lack of respect for the chain of command, and poor personal values.

Response by PO2 Kevin LaCroix made Apr 28 at 2015 8:36 AM

PO2 Kevin LaCroix — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:36:32 -0400

It depends. If the poster were to use a reference to active service in the post then that is not allow. If the criticism were general enough, with no reference as to active status then probably.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 8:53 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:53:52 -0400

For anyone that would like the regulatory reference MG Hugh Van Roosen cited both articles as a response to my earlier response to this question. I believe it is the first comment under the question. Thanks Sir.

Response by SPC David S. made Apr 28 at 2015 9:06 AM

SPC David S. — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:06:43 -0400

Case in point, regardless of wether it's legal or not, certain things you just don't say publicly about your boss. And the POTUS is your boss as a service member or any otheir government job.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 28 at 2015 3:45 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:45:59 -0400

Do in private and be tactful.

Response by SSG John Erny made Apr 28 at 2015 5:30 PM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:30:10 -0400

Unless you have a V or R next to your RP title it could be a good way to end up on the carpet in front of the CO

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Apr 28 at 2015 6:28 PM

CPO Greg Frazho — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:28:08 -0400

None of the above. As individuals, I say again, INDIVIDUALS, i.e., citizens of this Republic, it's your privilege and your RIGHT to voice your opinion. I don't ask it for it; frankly, I demand it. In fact, I'm exercising my First Amendment rights as I type this even now. Notice, though, that I'm not being a belligerent, obnoxious asshole while doing so. [A lot of people don't observe this professional habit.]

That said, as a uniformed service member, i.e., a member of the DoD, you can't speak for DoD unless you are specifically authorized to do so. That's usually reserved for public affairs officers, almost always in writing, as well as official spokespersons and other such individuals. However, even THEY can only speak on official business and rarely, if ever, express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, however much or little they agree with the policy in question.

Here on social media, everyone has a voice, whether it's really that person or some phantom Internet handle that I think a lot of people use, if for no other reason to hear themselves make the noise. Here on a military-specific social media domain, yeah, you can speak your mind, but somebody, invariably, is always watching. Infer from that what you will.

Response by Sgt Cody Dumont made Apr 28 at 2015 8:40 PM

Sgt Cody Dumont — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:40:37 -0400

When I first enlisted in 1990 Bill Clinton was just elected. I remember an order from CMC (Commadant Marine Corps) saying any Marine heard negativity commenting on the Commander and Chief shall be prosecuted. While you don't have to like the President (and I don't) while on active duty you can not talk negative about him/her.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 8:50 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:50:09 -0400

The POTUS is our Cammander and Chief, regardless of our rank - enough said!

Response by 1SG Cameron M. Wesson made Apr 28 at 2015 9:09 PM

1SG Cameron M. Wesson — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:09:12 -0400

Simply this... It's unacceptable. I didn't talk bad about my officers... Or NCOs... As it sends a bad message to my juniors and peers.

That is just good advice my old PSG Larry Johnson gave a group of us juniors in 1988. "Men! Don't talk about the LT bad in front of the soldiers! Its not acceptable and I'll rip your ass if I find you doing it. You wouldn't want me to do it to you so don't!".

So I don't!

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Apr 28 at 2015 10:12 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:12:17 -0400

You always have to respect the Rank, you do not have to respect the person. When the Lewinsky scandal occurred, Bill Clinton professed, on national TV that " He did not have relations with that woman..." Now, being on active duty at the time, myself and peers stated, he disrespected the people of the United States by lying to their faces on National TV. This was a reflection of the man, not having enough integrity to tell his people, the people he represented, the truth, no matter how painful. We did not comment on his position as commander in chief, even after it was learned that the event occurred when soldiers were dying in Somalia.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 9:03 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:03:21 -0400

No Go!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 9:46 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:46:55 -0400

As a senior leader or just a leader in general you should keep all negetive and positve comments to yourself when in the presence of other Soldiers or where they can view it on social media. Any comments you make can be influencing the opinion of subordinates which is not what we are here to do when it comes to the POTUS which is technical our most Senior Leader wether you like it or not.

Response by SGT James Murphy made Apr 29 at 2015 11:09 AM

SGT James Murphy — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:09:46 -0400

I can't believe that the General Staff Hasn't put together a Military Coup! We're sworn to uphold the Constitution and the Obama Administration has shredded it! There is so much illegal activity in Government that the military would be 100% justified in taking the whole bunch and locking them up pending trial for supporting enemies of our Nation! Other Than That I have no Strong Feelings on the Subject. Murph.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 29 at 2015 11:22 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:22:08 -0400

I hear a lot of CinC, UCMJ, etc. discussion. Beyond that, public whipping of anyone in a leadership position; legislative, judicial, executive, local, you name it should be beneath the dignity of a military member. Think about it. We're the last bastion of what keeps our country what it was meant to be by not only doing our mission, but also by not doing many things that you see militaries do around the world that ultimately wind up oppressing their own people.

The American Public has an overall sense our military isn't out to get them. Chipping away at that only serves to create more nonproductive friction in our society. Remember what being in the "service" means.

That said, you can still object to many leaders. Please don't have a military label attached to it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 7:46 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 May 2015 07:46:36 -0400

The question is whether comments are aimed at the person or policies. We have a civic duty to voice concern to policy, but partisan bickering and personal attacks should be avoided and are a crime under the ucmj for officers.

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made May 1 at 2015 7:59 AM

CW5 Jim Steddum — Fri, 01 May 2015 07:59:34 -0400

There is a big difference between negative and disrespectful / contemptuous.

Response by CW4 John Beebe, BS, DML made May 1 at 2015 8:37 AM

CW4 John Beebe, BS, DML — Fri, 01 May 2015 08:37:26 -0400

You are able to express your opinion legally as long as you are not representing the Military in any way or it is a violation of USC Title 10. We swore to obey the orders of those appointed over us, not to like them. One must ensure that their military service and their representation thereof do not ever cross with their participating as an active citizen of the US.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 10:01 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 May 2015 10:01:29 -0400

Respectful disagreement with the PotUS is okay. But active duty have to be cautious about how they do so in terms of how their affiliation with the military is represented. NG and Reserve have to consider the same while on Active Status (not just deployment, also includes training and drill).

Rather in or out of uniform flat out disrespect is wrong. Calling the PotUSor any elected official names is wrong.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made May 1 at 2015 3:23 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Fri, 01 May 2015 15:23:17 -0400

Here is an article I found in the Army Times.

Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ
Aug. 27, 2007 - 12:22PM | Last Updated: Aug. 27, 2007 - 12:22PM | 0 Comments
A
A

By Mathew B. Tully
Special to the Times
FILED UNDER
Pay & Benefits
VA Loan News
Q: I am currently on active duty and I want to get involved in politics. Can I?

A: This is a tricky question. The short answer is "no," but like almost everything with law, exceptions do apply. (If it was not for exceptions in the law, law school would be three months instead of three years.) Numerous articles in the UCMJ restrict the speech of service members, and two of those could affect political speech. I would point out that under Article 2 of the UCMJ, retired members of the military drawing pay, as well as active-duty service members, are subject to UCMJ provisions. So if you think retiring will allow you to escape UCMJ action, you are wrong.

DISCUSS
http://www.militarytimes.com/community/ask_lawyer/military_askthelawyer_070827w/">Speech limits and the UCMJ

My favorite UCMJ provision is Article 88, which makes it a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present

In 1999, Army Lieutenant Colonel Michael Davidson explained in a law review article that contemptuous "means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness." (http://tullylegal.com/article88.pdf">Read the full article, which is very instructive on Article 88).

This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s. Ltc. Davidson points out, "Since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950 only a single known court-martial has occurred pursuant to Article 88. In United States v. Howe, an Army Lieutenant was convicted for carrying a sign during an antiwar demonstration that read ‘Let's Have More Than A Choice Between Petty Ignorant Fascists In 1968' on one side and ‘End Johnson's Fascist Aggression In Vietnam' on the other side. Lieutenant Howe did not participate in organizing the demonstration, but merely joined it after it began. During the half-hour demonstration, Howe was off duty, in civilian clothes, and no one at the demonstration knew of his military affiliation. Howe came to the Army's attention only because a gas station attendant, who Howe had asked for directions, spotted the lieutenant's sign and an Army sticker on his vehicle and subsequently notified the local military police."

Lt. Howe was sentenced to dismissal, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. The convening authority reduced the period of confinement to one year and otherwise approved the sentence. Three months and two days after his trial he was released from confinement under commandant's parole.

Article 134, known as the catch-all article, makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This is pretty broad and explains why it is often called the catch-all article. If your chain of command thinks your political involvement has affected your unit or the military, you could be punished under this article.

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to worry about. If you are a noncommissioned officer, warrant officer or an officer, and attempt to influence other members of the military to vote because of your military authority, then you will be facing five years in prison under 18 USC 609.

Now that you have brushed up on some key laws, you could also run afoul of some very restrictive regulations. DoD Directive 1344.10 bans active-duty service members from running for office, participating in partisan political management, or campaigns (many exceptions are applicable).

If you have plans to speak out against the current administration, I would strongly recommend against it until you are off active duty — and not collecting retired pay!

Keep the questions coming.

Mathew B. Tully, Esq. is a field artillery officer in the New York National Guard and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is also the founding partner of http://www.fedattorney.com">Tully, Rinckey and Associates, a law firm in Albany, N.Y. E-mail your legal questions to [login to see] .

The information in this column is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney or other professional when an opinion is needed.

Response by LTC Scott O'Neil made May 7 at 2015 1:48 PM

LTC Scott O'Neil — Thu, 07 May 2015 13:48:30 -0400

The first amendment allows for freedom of speech. Now, having said that those on active duty do not have that privilege or authority to do so, on the other hand we retired Vets have that luxury and right>

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made May 7 at 2015 1:59 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Thu, 07 May 2015 13:59:42 -0400

I think active duty anyone should be thoughtful about what they post on the internet, especially about the commander in chief.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 2:01 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 May 2015 14:01:33 -0400

There's a right way and a wrong way to criticize our leaders when you're in the military. Many folk don't understand the difference and think they should be able to say whatever they want.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 2:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 May 2015 14:36:39 -0400

I have been told different things over the years. However I will stick with what I first learned. While Soldiers and NCO's are free to criticise the POTUS, officers can not. The reason put to me was that because Officers hold their commission from the POTUS, they are not permitted to do so.

We also all know that soldiers are going to complain. I forgot who it was who said "the only soldier who doesn't complain is a dead soldier". However there is a huge difference between respectfully disagreeing and doing it disrespectfully.