I’ve been wondering something, and Looking at This thread finally decided to make me ask.
When you’re in any branch of the military, you’re not supposed to criticize the president, but what are the rules? If I’m not mistaken, Airman Doors is still in the Air Force, yet,
sounds like a criticism to me.
So what are the limits? Can you do a general criticism but aren’t allowed to elaborate on the details, or???
Thanks.
From the Air University site:
If indeed Airman Doors is/was an enlisted member (as the title “Airman” might suggest), he is/was not a commissioned officer and therefore would not be subject to Article 88. There may be another article that addresses enlisted members, but I am not aware of it. IMHO, Article 89 does not fit the bill because the President is not considered a commissioned officer - legal types please correct me if I’m mistaken.
IIRC, Brother Doors separated from the AF Reserve earlier this year.
Above taken from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by the way.
Wow…that’s scary. Potentially being prosecuted for criticising the leader who you’re entitled to elect (or to not elect).
OK, Quick follow up … is this ever actually used and if so what sort of actions started it and what sort of punishment was dealt out ? Or do people play safe just in case.
I mean under the wording of that a commissioned officer could get drunk with a couple of other officers and say something like “Good ol’ GWB looks a bit like an ape” and get punished for it. I assume that it’s really only brought into play with very public statements or printed words.
So, anyone got examples of this happening ?
I’ve never heard of anyone getting in trouble under Article 88. Of course, it’s not what the laws are, it’s how they’re enforced. I can’t imagine that back when Clinton was in office that any officer would get in trouble for bad-mouthing him.
Personally, I try not to discuss politics at work. But when I was filling out my absentee-voter ballot application, I overheard a tech sergeant saying she didn’t trust Kerry because “he’s never run a company, how would he know how to run a country?” It took all the self-control I had to not say “Well, Bush never successfully ran a company, either.”
Please take note that the referenced comment:
relates to his choice in voting come November 2, and does not constitute “contemptuous words” regarding the incumbent. He is simply making public his intent not to vote to reelect Mr. Bush, something he is clearly entitled to have an opinion on. If he had suggested that Mr. Bush sucks the juice out of syphilitic chancre sores on elderly donkeys, he would be using contemptuous words regarding Mr. Bush. What he said was that he made a mistake in supporting Mr. Bush’s candidacy in 2000 and will do otherwise in 2004. There is a distinction between Mr. Bush as candidate for reelection and Mr. Bush as incumbent President to be noted there – otherwise, being in the military and voting against the incumbent would be a punishable expression of contempt.
Excellent point. Well, except that voting is (or is at least supposed to be) private and (theoretically at least) nobody would know who voted for who.
But I get your other point that there can be a separation of showing discontent for a president, and using contemptuous words.
Don’t say that to Major Daniel Rabil, USMCR, who said this in the Washington Times editorial pages during the Clinton Administration (Nov 10, 1998) He was not on active duty, and therefore not subject to the UCMJ when this was written, but he came under investigation for violation of Article 88, and was a headliner during the impeachment of Clinton. I do not know if he was formally punished.
Or Major Shane Seller, USMC, who wrote that Clinton was an “adulterous liar” in the Marine Corps Times, again, in an editorial. He was investigated under Article 88, but he only got a non-punitive letter of caution, probably because what he wrote was true (and he was retiring very soon).
Or Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Butler, who wrote an article critical of Bush in the May 26, 2002 edition of the Monterey Herald. He was immediately suspended as vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey.
Presumably the law is there to discourage military officers from performing the kinds of things necessary before leading a coup. Unlikely in this day and age (and even ulikely when the UCMJ was written), but there is a method behind the madness.
And I would agree with others who say that this does not outlaw any criticism of the President, just criticism of the snarky, contemptuous type made by people like me and other intellectual wanna-be’s.
If the offense is serious enough, the military can always prosecute under the General Article.
This basically means that the military can prosecute an enlisted member for the same offense, or any offense prejudicial to good order and discipline.
This article is very broad. It enables prosecution and non-judicial punishment both for anything the military deems worthy of punishment.
I have no military experience. I wonder whether, under the provisions of the UCMJ cited above, are terms like “contemptuous words” or “disrespect” defined, or are they judged by the court-martial panel on a case-by-case basis? I’m not talking about calling someone a monkey. Is the speaker allowed to express the opinion that the officer or President is following a misguided policy, or undertaking the wrong course of action? Would it be a violation for, say, a Major to tell a Colonel, “Sir, you’re wrong, and here’s why…” Is he allowed to publicly express the same opinion? If the Colonel foolishly ordered an assault on an enemy position that got a lot of troops killed, are his subordinates subject to action if they publicly complain about it? Would it be a crime for two lieutenants to tell each other over beers that President Bush is an idiot for invading Iraq? I realize that the military can pretty much transfer anybody anywhere anytime for any reason. But what do you have to say and to whom to actually be convicted of “contempt” or “disrespect”?
It generally would have to be a public act.
For instance, a major could point out flaws of an order given to him by his superior in the chain of command, let’s say a colonel. If he does so in private, all he risks, generally, is the colonel’s ill will.
Most officers do like input from others, though.
Real trouble would occur, though, if the colonel finally makes a decision, and the major then complains about it to the other officers and enlisted men under him.
Here’s the explanation of the article, from the text:
and here’s an explanation from a previous code (but the same offense)
Damn, this is all pretty complicated, but I think I get the gist of it.
OK, first of all, I am still in the Air National Guard. While it is generally understood that things in the Guard are more laid back (which has varying amounts of truth and fiction to it), it is still unacceptable to “straight-arm” your superiors, and as an E-4 that includes pretty much everybody.
Second, the article that would apply to me, as Mr. Moto suggests, would be Article 134 as I am not an officer but am still restrained from making “disloyal” comments.
Last, the rules do not allow me to make disparaging comments. However, that does not prevent me from expressing my opinion, with some limitations. Since undermining my chain of command is illegal but I am still an American citizen I have a very fine line to walk on, and the weird thing is you never know when that line is crossed until you go too far. So I try to stay well south of that line, although sometimes I go right up to the edge.
Poly got it exactly right. Bush the candidate is to be differentiated from Bush the President, just as he is to be differentiated from Bush the former Air Force officer, Bush the Governor, and Bush the oilman. The risk is that some people are unable to make this distinction. Although, I must say, I very likely have nothing to worry about because I am a small fish in a very big pond, I have too much respect for the law to just shrug and go for broke. As a result, a lot of my posts show a lot of discretion, which people confuse for waffling or obfuscation, which is almost never the case. I am a straight shooter. I say what I mean. Often times, however, I am not allowed to say what I want to say. Such is the sacrifice required to be in the military.
Come January 20, 2005 (or 2009 depending upon the election results this year) I will be free to say whatever I want about Mr. Bush because he will no longer be in my chain of command. If Kerry wins I will then extend that same courtesy to him.
Aside - Kerry did actually run a company. Known as “Kilvert & Forbes” after the partners’ mothers’ maiden names, it made cookies. Cite.
My mistake Airman Doors, glad to hear you’re still in uniform. Too many big gaps in my access to SDMB for the last 10 months.
I believe Polycarp is indeed correct that Airman’s referenced comment did not constitute criticism - I hope my post of the info from Articles 88 and 89 did not suggest that, only that he is not subject to those articles. All servicemembers are encouraged to vote, and nobody in the service is (or at least nobody should be) coerced/encouraged to vote for any particular candidate, even the incumbent president and current CINC.
Something you all might be interested in: [This document](http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/ dpc/MPMC/Lesson%203/Lesson%203.rtf) from an AFPC lesson speaks to uniform wear and political activity for Air Force members. Scroll down to where it says “Political Activities/Dissident And Protest Activities (Refs: AFI 51-902 and AFI 51-903).” It’s a pretty interesting read. Posts on the SDMB might fall under this guidance (things that are allowed):
Make that " . . . not subject to Article 88, and Article 89 is not applicable with regards to the President."
[Background note, Ret. Capt., U.S. Army]
Personally I have no advanced legal knowledge of the code in question. Again within the Army we have our own legal experts that know more about the laws than the rest of the non-legal types, just like in the real world you have an idea as to how to obey the laws but legal professionals know the nitty gritty.
However it’s my basic feeling that Article 88 is supposed to work like this. The military is supposed to be impartial in political matters, the founders had read far too many historical stories of political military leaders interfering with the governing process.
While members of the military have been given the right to vote, you have to understand you have to put everything secondary to your military obligations. So while you wouldn’t necessarily be breaking the code just by speaking out against some policies of George W. Bush, it would be somewhat improper, especially for a high ranking officer, to do so in public.
Furthermore it has always been seen as a bit inappropriate to speak badly about your CO. And any problems you have with your CO should be dealt with privately and never in front of enlisted men or anyone of lower rank, or anyone else for that matter.
You must never call into question the leader’s leadership or status, it’s just not how things are done. And in the grand scheme of things ultimately the head CO for the entire U.S. Armed Forces is the President.
And everyone here must also realize just what the armed forces are. It is an organization whose members give up some of their Constitutional rights in order to serve their country.
One of the most prominent of those rights we give up is liberty. In the strictest sense military men are not free. While one can usually slither out of the military if you really want out, typically you must serve your enlistment, you don’t have the right to just up and quit. And in the military and order has the force of law. If you disobey and order, you have actually broken a law and can be tried, convicted, and punished in court for it.
There’s no reason to get into the why and how of that right now, but ultimately I think that is how things have to be to run a military.
But keep that in mind before you think that the rules and regulations are a bit too draconian or anti-democratic in nature.