Social Media
Social Media
Posted on Jan 20, 2017
Is disrespect of a former POTUS on social media allowed? Is it acceptable after they've left office?
36.5K
135
81
10
10
0
I know that it's in very bad taste and a big no-no to disrespect the Commander in Chief, but what about if they've left office? Can servicemembers attack George Bush or another former POTUS because they're no longer in that soldiers chain of command?
Office of the President (POTUS)
Social Media
Disrespect
UCMJ
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 49
31
31
0
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Ryan R. - Young and old do, I can agree, but that is not what he was referring to.... just tying to stay on topic :)
(1)
(0)
SPC Kathleen Harris
I am happy I am a veteran, I don't know what it would take for me to respect and honor our current president.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC Kathleen Harris - Respect of the office is always paramount in my opinion, be it SM or Veteran. One does not have to like the person either formally or currently residing in it.
(0)
(0)
29
29
0
2 points, first is Article 88 of the UCMJ "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"
Enlisted can be tagged under AR 134 for contemptuous ~behaviors per say.
So it's not explicitly stated against former "officials" but it certainly is in very bad taste. That said you do have freedom of speech and bad mouthing a former president will not land you in legal trouble without other factors.
The second point is like religion and politics they are easy to discuss but will strain your work relations because everyone has an opinion and they are very divisive so generally best to keep those conversations for outside of work.
I expect there to be many derogatory comments about our soon to be former POTUS starting tomorrow, when Trump takes his oath.
Enlisted can be tagged under AR 134 for contemptuous ~behaviors per say.
So it's not explicitly stated against former "officials" but it certainly is in very bad taste. That said you do have freedom of speech and bad mouthing a former president will not land you in legal trouble without other factors.
The second point is like religion and politics they are easy to discuss but will strain your work relations because everyone has an opinion and they are very divisive so generally best to keep those conversations for outside of work.
I expect there to be many derogatory comments about our soon to be former POTUS starting tomorrow, when Trump takes his oath.
(29)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
I'm more than a little surprised at your response, MAJ (Join to see).
I have never seen or heard anyone not advocate corrective discipline as a first choice for insubordination or failure to show proper respect for superiors. In the vast majority of cases, that disciplinary action works and there is no need for harsher actions.
Even in cases where flag-rank officers get publicly reprimanded or cashiered, there is always a history of efforts by peers and commanders to halt the behavior before dropping the hammer. In McArthur's case, the Joint Chiefs even tried to convince McArthur to mend his behavior before advising the President to relieve him for insubordination -- advice which President Truman did not take until after he had also attempted to correct McArthur's behavior.
I have never seen or heard anyone not advocate corrective discipline as a first choice for insubordination or failure to show proper respect for superiors. In the vast majority of cases, that disciplinary action works and there is no need for harsher actions.
Even in cases where flag-rank officers get publicly reprimanded or cashiered, there is always a history of efforts by peers and commanders to halt the behavior before dropping the hammer. In McArthur's case, the Joint Chiefs even tried to convince McArthur to mend his behavior before advising the President to relieve him for insubordination -- advice which President Truman did not take until after he had also attempted to correct McArthur's behavior.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
1LT William Clardy - Normally before Article 88 will garner legal support there are many other infractions that are easier to apply. (psychological discharge one that I witnessed) Typically individuals who publically call out our country's politicians have far more local issues, insubordination to the chain of command being more prevalent.
(0)
(0)
CPT Ryan H.
1LT William Clardy - The Generals, Thomas E. Ricks. Not much was really done directly by the Joint Chiefs to reel in MacArthur. They were reluctant to tell him to get in line because they were concerned with how it would look when MaArthur wouldn't obey. MacArthur was only verbally told to remember his subordinancy to the Preseident by the President himself, after the General didn't salute the POTUS when they first met in Wake Island in 15 OCT 1950. Later he repeatedly refused to follow on order to not discuss the Korean War with the media. He also spoke it against the UN and President Truman's "policies of appeasement" in conducting the Korean War. It wasn't until after set the conditions that botched the Battle of Chosin Resevoir a couple months later, and repeated insubordination that Truman relieved him, via a letter - not even face to face in April the following year.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
CPT Ryan H., I don't have a citation handy, but I remember reading back during the last millennium some comments by GEN Ridgway about the Truman-MacArthur controversy. According to Ridgway, one problem was that MacArthur was *the* senior soldier in the Army -- many of the Korea-era generals were intimidated by the fact that MacArthur had served as the Chief of Staff of the Army back when they were still field-grade officers. But the JCS consensus that MacArthur had to be relieved for insubordination came after a repeated pattern of insubordination despite clear orders and "back channel" advisories.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
1LT William Clardy
Because sometimes it is earned, SP5 (Join to see), either at a personal level or at a societal level.
For example, I have great disdain for the late Robert S. MacNamara due to his amoral conduct as Secretary of Defense, where he chose to never protest implementing a national policy for fighting a war he did not believe winnable or worth fighting -- in the "Fog of War" documentary, he openly states that he put his interpretation of personal loyalty to the president as his topmost priority. I may temper how I express that disdain, but I definitely consider it (and other folks' lack of respect for former SecDef MacNamara) well-earned.
For example, I have great disdain for the late Robert S. MacNamara due to his amoral conduct as Secretary of Defense, where he chose to never protest implementing a national policy for fighting a war he did not believe winnable or worth fighting -- in the "Fog of War" documentary, he openly states that he put his interpretation of personal loyalty to the president as his topmost priority. I may temper how I express that disdain, but I definitely consider it (and other folks' lack of respect for former SecDef MacNamara) well-earned.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google