A Sad State of Civil-Military Relations

Luigi59 said:
Retired members of the uniformed services who are entitled to retirement pay are also subject to the UCMJ, as are retired reservists who are receiving hospital care in the VA system.
Click to expand...

Try making that one stick Luigi. Just ask Wesley Clark how much he can say politically.
 
sweettooth said:
I thought CC is an active duty officer
Click to expand...

Sweettooth; let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and lets assume that I am still active duty. Could you please tell me one contemptuous word I said in my post. Not arguing with you, but I don't want to mislead any soon to be commissioned officer. Or mislead any applicant who is considering military service.

Now I know that i didn't say anything contemptuous, but apparently you believe I did. So for argument sake, lets assume that I am active duty and am an O-6. Please tell me what part of my post is against the UCMJ.
 
Christcorp said:
Sweettooth; let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and lets assume that I am still active duty. Could you please tell me one contemptuous word I said in my post. Not arguing with you, but I don't want to mislead any soon to be commissioned officer. Or mislead any applicant who is considering military service.

Now I know that i didn't say anything contemptuous, but apparently you believe I did. So for argument sake, lets assume that I am active duty and am an O-6. Please tell me what part of my post is against the UCMJ.
Click to expand...

Thank you CC, I appreciate your civility. I am really interested in your view as a retired officer on this issue. IMO your posts display a very negative view of the President and the administration. This is a non political discussion board for young people considering attending our service academies and ROTC. I also think you advocate a politicization within the officer corps that is at odds with traditional view and I think young people on this board may be mislead by such posts and get into trouble as a result. For instance, SAMACA10 just posted that one can reconcile the differece by, "not saying those things while we're in uniform." I think this is wrong interpretation of the article. In some allowed political activities the rules state that an activity is allowed if the officer is out of uniform, using a personal vehicle etc. However, in the instance of contemptuous speech their is no allowance stated.
 
Sweettooth; I have to ask again, for SPECIFIC words I used in this thread that was derogatory towards the president. Again; for discussion sake, I want you to assume that I am STILL on active duty. "For the record: I was not a commissioned officer, but a non-commissioned officer". But that is besides the point, the rules apply equally. I want you to assume that I am active duty, and that I am a flag officer. Please tell me where I SAID anything that contemptuous against the President or any other person in the Military Chain of Command?

You're the one who questioned me about the UCMJ. I am very familiar with the UCMJ. Including article 888 and similar for enlisted members. You do not renounce your "Citizenship" from the United States just because you became a member of the military. Whether enlisted or commissioned. There are certain rules you must abide by, but you are not prohibited from being involved in the political process.

But we are fading from the original question. You believe that I said something derogatory or contemptuous about the president in this thread. I'd like to know what that was? Now; if you're saying that I've said negative things about the president and administration in OTHER posts; then that is quite possible. And I have the right to say such a thing. And so does an ACTIVE DUTY individual, as long as they 1) Do not portray their military affiliation (e.g. in uniform, say "I'm in the military and I think", or any other association with military. and 2) That these thoughts remain private and are not allowed to affect your conduct, decision making, or ability to follow orders in the military. So yes, as a retiree, I do enjoy the luxury of being allowed much more freedom of speech towards the president and the government. But I'm responding directly to your comment in "This Thread", that somehow I was being disrespectful. Thanks.... mike.....
 
sweettooth said:
how do you reconcile your views with the ucmj article 888

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
Click to expand...
First, CC is a Sr NCO, retired, so I do not believe Article 88 would apply; probably article 134, but I will leave the accuracy of that to a more knowledgeable JAG type.

If you read the entire article, the "meat" comes out as: "The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” 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.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

I take this to mean that I may, in discussions such as this forum, or other like activities, offer my opinion in the generic re: criticizing that which I think is bad/wrong/etc. But I can NOT go out and call out the name of "insert official/organization listed" and use contemptuous words/phrases/etc."

I am a senior officer, and I have punished (well, been part of the process) a fellow officer under Article 88 during a past Presidential election. He was stupid and got way out of hand during a military training event. After repeated warnings, he basically decided his opinions were more important than his career.

And his career ended that day.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Christcorp said:
Sweettooth; I have to ask again, for SPECIFIC words I used in this thread that was derogatory towards the president. Again; for discussion sake, I want you to assume that I am STILL on active duty. "For the record: I was not a commissioned officer, but a non-commissioned officer". But that is besides the point, the rules apply equally. I want you to assume that I am active duty, and that I am a flag officer. Please tell me where I SAID anything that contemptuous against the President or any other person in the Military Chain of Command?

You're the one who questioned me about the UCMJ. I am very familiar with the UCMJ. Including article 888 and similar for enlisted members. You do not renounce your "Citizenship" from the United States just because you became a member of the military. Whether enlisted or commissioned. There are certain rules you must abide by, but you are not prohibited from being involved in the political process.

But we are fading from the original question. You believe that I said something derogatory or contemptuous about the president in this thread. I'd like to know what that was? Now; if you're saying that I've said negative things about the president and administration in OTHER posts; then that is quite possible. And I have the right to say such a thing. And so does an ACTIVE DUTY individual, as long as they 1) Do not portray their military affiliation (e.g. in uniform, say "I'm in the military and I think", or any other association with military. and 2) That these thoughts remain private and are not allowed to affect your conduct, decision making, or ability to follow orders in the military. So yes, as a retiree, I do enjoy the luxury of being allowed much more freedom of speech towards the president and the government. But I'm responding directly to your comment in "This Thread", that somehow I was being disrespectful. Thanks.... mike.....
Click to expand...

I am referring to the totality of your posts. I am concerned about the high school students and cadets reading your posts being mislead as to the acceptable manner to conduct their speech as members of the US armed forces. Also per the rules of the service academy forums (emphasis added):

Service Academy Forums® General Posting Rules

Here at ServiceAcademyForums.com, we constantly strive to make our discussion forums as informative, accurate, fun, and lively as possible while maintaining an environment that is also professional and respectful of the fact that applicants, alumni, and members of the Armed Forces come from all religions, ethnic backgrounds, social strata, and political orientations.

The following are an evolving series of rules for conduct in these forums. Those who choose not to follow these rules may be warned, have their account temporarily suspended, or be permanently banned at the discretion of the Site Staff. Serious violations such as threats of violence or advocating illegal or criminal activities may be reported the proper authorities along with the offender's IP address.

Please respect your fellow posters by conforming to the following rules:

- Do not use derogatory comments of a racial, religious, or sexual nature. This includes in your posts, username, bio information, and signature line.

- Do not post pictures or links to images which contain pornography, nudity, animal cruelty, racism, sexism, or extreme violence. This includes your avatar.

- Do not post or link to information on how to violate the law.

- Do not post comments or links in support of doing harm to a state or federal official, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

- Do not post another member's personal contact information, including names, phone numbers, addresses, unpublished e-mail addresses, and other personal information.

- Do not attack or insult a person in an effort to elicit a negative response. You have a right to disagree, but you must do so in a respectful manner.

- Do not post topics or discussions with the desire to do the site or the community harm. This includes creating topics or posts meant to disrupt the site's day to day management, member resources, or the ability for the site to function normally.

- Do not post repeat topics with similar or slightly varying titles. While it may seem funny, it results in problems for users and management. Multiple topics on important issues or discussions are acceptable. This requirement only applies to topics which waste resources for no other reason except personal enjoyment or attempts at humor.

- Do not attempt to abuse or cause damage to the site or services by exploiting them. This includes the theft of bandwidth by linking site images to personal or high traffic websites.

- Do not post advertisements or any other material meant to solicit sales or traffic to a commercial website or other commercial entity. All such violations will be cause for immediate and permanent banning.

- Do not post links to similar or competitive websites. Links to non-competitive websites will remain present at the discretion of the site management.

- Be mindful of your language. We understand that colorful language is a fact of military life, and while profanity will not normally be a concern, it will quickly become one if its use is excessive or extreme. Determining what is "excessive" or "extreme" will be the responsibility of the Moderators and Site Staff and their decisions in this regard will be final.

- If you are here only to start trouble, please reconsider. This is a patriotic website where we love our country and hold the members of the Armed Forces in the highest esteem. While you are free to discuss and debate policy, tactics, trends, and so forth, posts which criticize the United States in general or the Armed Forces in particular may lead to a ban if the only reason for posting them is to insult or belittle. If you are not an applicant, parent, current SA student, or alumni, the latitude granted to you will be extremely limited.

- The purpose of this site is not to discuss politics. Political discussions should be limited in context and scope, and our nation's elected officials respected at all times.

- Some forums will have specific posting rules applicable to them. These rules will be found in a tacked thread in each applicable forum. Please follow those rules as well as those above.

Please keep the following in mind:

- This site is intended to allow Service Academy Candidates, Cadets, Midshipmen, their parents, and Alumni a little corner of the web in which to converse and share information and fellowship. However, it is open to all active-duty and reserve military members as well as all veterans, and for that matter anyone who has a sincere interest in the Academies or the Armed Forces and who wishes to find out more about them.

- There are no First Amendment freedoms here. The owners of this site retain the absolute authority to edit or delete any post and to ban any member for any reason at any time.

- Service Academy Forums® does not entertain requests to delete user accounts. Once an account is created by a user, it will not be deleted.

- If you are having any issues with the site or with another member, we encourage you to contact any Site Staff or Moderator via PM and explain the situation. We will always strive to be fair and consistent in resolving problems, but please understand that the Owners have delegated authority over the forums to the Site Staff and Moderators, and that their word in such cases will be final.

We thank you for visiting our site and hope that you find it an enjoyable and informative place to spend your online time. If you have any questions, suggestions, or issues, please don't hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,

The Site Staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by TacticalNuke; 26th January 2011 at 09:33 PM.
 
folks- before this goes too far astray- I believe that everyone needs to refer and realign. the post was a discussion of the legality and appropriateness of
Mitt Romney's campaign appearance at the Citadel and the Citadel Cadets cheering some of his comments.
Where will the thread not go? We are not going to devolve into reviewing 4 years of comments by any or all posters on whether or not they stayed within the bounds of the forum much less the UCMJ.

Try to frame this in a discussion of the original or related topic and stay away from directing your posts at each other. There are valid viewpoints from multiple perspectives on this issue- folks ought to be able to articulate them without directing barbs at each other.

Please Enjoy the show
 
CC's comments also support the thread. I believe you may assume that anyone in the military not jumping for joy at the idea of 4 more years of Obama has suddenly broken a federal law.

Negative ghost rider!
Strike 1!

In addition to that, CC has also not violated a forum rule, he's responding to the original poster.

Strike 2!

Finally you made an assumption about CC's rank and status.

Strike 3! Credibility out the door.


Would love to know your background and status though Sweettooth.
 
scoutpilot said:
I believe he was an NCO as well, not an officer.

Assumptions don't serve us well.
Click to expand...

I believe I already told the Poster that I was an NCO, retired. But FWIW: The topic of discussion, has the same set of rules whether enlisted or commissioned. I believe that the confusion comes with Sweettooth believing that if a military member; enlisted or commissioned; says they do not agree with the president or his administration, then they are automatically in violation of the UCMJ. This isn't quite correct.

This isn't to say that it's not a tricky situation. It most definitely is. Whether it's article 88 (contempt towards officials), or they want to back door someone with article 133 (Unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman); the point is that you can not bring discredit to the military. If you are associated or linked in any way to the military, and that association follows you with your beliefs and comments, you can be held accountable. And yes, I believe it's article 2 that says that it applies to active duty and retired who are receiving a retirement check. Now, would the UCMJ be brought against a retiree or a prep-school or ROTC student for such acts as speaking their political beliefs against the president? No. Legally, yes. Practical, No. Now; a detachment commander may see to it that an ROTC cadet never saw another day of ROTC and future commissioning, but that's as far as that would go.

The UCMJ is a great legal system. But it's definitely misunderstood at times. Here's a prime example.... What major military social change has happened very recently? The elimination of the Don't Ask, Don't tell policy. HOWEVER: Article 125 of the UCMJ is still on the books. (Unless someone can show me that it has been rescinded). So, legally, unless a homosexual couple is celibate, they are going against article 125. Matter of fact, unless the sexual act is considered natural; meaning basically the missionary position, even a heterosexual couple would be considered as breaking this article.

Not trying to go on a tangent. But it's important to know the military/congress was very clear in the establishment of the UCMJ that there would be one set of judicial standards for all military members; no matter where they were stationed. But also; that a military would not surrender their civil rights as an American citizen. So while it's hard sometimes to curb your tongue as an active duty member towards the current president or contempt towards any official, you don't have to simply agree with everything and be a robot. You are still a citizen of the United States. As long as you aren't associating your beliefs with the military, you're free to express. e.g. You're free to express yourself on internet forums. Mainly because it's anonymous. And that's basically what the military expects. Make certain that your speech, actions, beliefs, etc... are anonymous. Don't let anyone be able to say that "Colonel So and So Said.... about the president".... or "Sgt So and So was at the anti-war protest". Keep yourself anonymous, and you are free to express yourself.
 
Christcorp said:
The UCMJ is a great legal system. But it's definitely misunderstood at times. Here's a prime example.... What major military social change has happened very recently? The elimination of the Don't Ask, Don't tell policy. HOWEVER: Article 125 of the UCMJ is still on the books. (Unless someone can show me that it has been rescinded). So, legally, unless a homosexual couple is celibate, they are going against article 125. Matter of fact, unless the sexual act is considered natural; meaning basically the missionary position, even a heterosexual couple would be considered as breaking this article.
Click to expand...

On the books but not valid, gay or straight. Lawrence v Texas applied to this law (so I learned in Law at USAFA and in the DADT repeal training). It is in the books but no longer legally valid.
 
I've seen Art. 125 of UCMJ enforced, in 2006. It was a heterosexual act. It was my classmate, and the decision was upheld by the Court of the Appeals for the Armed Forces in 2009 or 2010.
 
Exactly my point. Both Hornet and LITS. TECHNICALLY: An article of the UCMJ could be used, yet they don't "press charges". Sometimes they do/can.

I know I'm old, and I was in the military before some here were ever born, but I had a classmate (Female) in technical school who sort of slept around. She and 3 guys got VD. No problem. Everyone gets some shots; told to refrain from sex for a period of time; life goes on. Well; she didn't heed the directions, and another guy got the clap. This time, not only did the medical doctor at the hospital talk to her again, but so did the Colonel in charge at the hospital. Life moves on. Again; she didn't listen. Another guy got VD from her. Not sure if it happened another time or not, but the military pressed charges; and besides the whole disobeying orders route, they got her for "Destruction of Government Property" and kicked her out. I know, because she was a classmate, and I gave her a ride to the airport when she got kicked out, and she told me the whole story.

Point is: A retiree, under UCMJ jurisdiction or not, is most likely not going to have any UCMJ charges filed against them. A military member minding their own private business, expressing their own political feeling, and not associating themselves and beliefs with the military, will also not have any problems. But if you have to be in the lime light, in front of the TV cameras during a protest or political rally, and associate yourself with the military with a USAF t-shirt; Squadron hat; talking about your military life to other political activists; etc... then you are going to have charges against you.

AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!!!

The military does not have any desire to infringe or take away any of your constitutional rights. But you do not have the right to compromise the reputation and discipline of the military. So no, you aren't breaking any UCMJ laws by being politically active. Even if you want to express your disagreement with the established government and/or officials. But you can't do it in any type of military capacity whatsoever. Direct or implied.
 
Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

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).
Click to expand...
 
Christcorp said:
I believe I already told the Poster that I was an NCO, retired. But FWIW: The topic of discussion, has the same set of rules whether enlisted or commissioned.
Click to expand...

Article 88 applies ONLY to commissioned officers.
 
Back to the original discussion (thanks bruno)

I think it clear that Romney selected the Citadel for his "major foreign policy" speech expressly because the Cadets are in uniform. Having them in the background gave his positions and criticism the appearance of credibility he otherwise could not have achieved. So IMHO, I think the administration of the Citadel erred in allowing this one candidate to use the Cadets for that purpose. (I'm expecting Perry to give one at TA&M for exactly the same reasons.)

Should they have cheered at his criticism of the CiC? While that is their right as Americans I hope it was pointed out that once commissioned they’re required to behave differently and, to quote a term currently in common use within the military, we train the way we fight.
 
IF commissioned, not when. And perhaps the administration at Citadel isn't non-affiliated. There's nothing banning them from this action. Perhaps they wanted to help Romney because they viewed Obama as a failure.


Luigi, your article is narrowly focused and would leave most military members questioning if they can be involved in anything.


While I was still an officer I went to a political rally in Virginia for John McCain (it had come down to just McCain that that point, I wasn't an original supporter but viewed him as the lesser of two evils). I had nothing identifying me as a member of the military. A political appointee friend of my had worked out a spot for me on the stage behind the candidate (VIP seating, nice). I clapped and booed, and cheered. The cheering was for a Republican nominee who was attacking the Democrat nominee, not a sitting President.

Before I went I called a Coast Guard lawyer, to figure out what I could and couldn't do at the rally. It is more restrictive for active duty v. reserve, but it's no where near as restrictive as Luigi's article would have it appear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top