How do you feel about currently serving military who bash the President on social media?

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:48:13 -0400

Response by SSG William Sutter made Jul 4 at 2014 3:36 AM

SSG William Sutter — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 03:36:22 -0400

Wow, it is too hard not too. The president is not talked about nicely anywhere in the military that I am aware of. I think the best thing he did for us is get us out of Iraq.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 4:22 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:22:34 -0400

He is the Commander In Chief. He is my bosses boss, uppermost in my chain of command. I will respect him and the rank that he carries. Most "changes" that people hate come directly from Congress and not the President. Most of the population is severely under educated on how exactly the government process works. Sure, you may not like a policy that the President endorses or tries to pass, but try to remember that it is a possible solution to an already existing problem. Otherwise the policy would not have been created. Instead of complaining why not either a.) embrace the change and at least try to make it work or b.) vote against it and use your governmental powers to do what you can. Trying to make others look bad, you make yourself look worse.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 4 at 2014 7:39 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 07:39:10 -0400

Freedom of speech. One of the few countries in the world where you can do it and not find yourself on the wrong end of a firing squad. Though one has to be smart and responsible about it. Simply blaring out the first thing on your mind or combining certain keywords with POTUS in the same sentence that could have the Secret Service paying you a not-so-social call, would not be highly recommended CsOA.

Happy 4th CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member and thanks for your service.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 7:48 AM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 07:48:47 -0400

I, just as everyone else in the military, must respect the position/rank, not the person. The respect for the person must be earned, not assumed or blatantly given out.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jul 4 at 2014 8:16 AM

CMSgt James Nolan — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 08:16:46 -0400

Simply spoken, if you are a US citizen, you have freedom of speech-our brothers have assured that right with their blood.

As a member of the military-you do not exactly have that right. When I see posts by, or hear military members bashing, I remind them of our position and that there is nothing worse than the public seeing/hearing military represented and disrespecting.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 10:42 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:42:46 -0400

In my opinion it is shameful and shows a lack of understanding of how the military is to conduct itself in the public eye. Yes freedom of speech is important, but using it wisely is equally so.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 4:04 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 16:04:57 -0400

It actually doesn't bother me. Sometimes it makes me wonder why those who sacrifice so much for their nation have LESS freedoms than the average citizen who does NOTHING to earn that freedom. Freedom of speech should be allowed for everyone.

With that said, there is a time and a place for it. And airing your dirty laundry out on social media is not the place to do it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 5:33 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:33:43 -0400

You raise an interesting question, and I hope this is not too much of a thread hijack, but I would be very interested to hear others expound on the legal perspective on this subject as it pertains to Guardsmen. Here’s my take:

While UCMJ may apply to Service Members who are on or off duty in the Federal service, UCMJ does NOT apply to National Guardsmen unless activated under Title 10 Orders. Guardsmen are under Title 32 STATE orders one weekend a month and are in a non-duty status for 90% of the month (32 U.S.C. § 502 (2000))

And now... the rest of the story...

Federal law authorizes each state National Guard to administer a military justice program similar to that of the UCMJ (32 U.S.C.S. §§ 326–327) It is up to the diverse State Military Justice Programs to determine content, execution and the punishments to be conferred through the MJP.

While the majority of States have an MJP analogous to UCMJ, since most transgressions occur outside of State duty, most offenses are deferred to civil authorities for adjudication.

As an example, suppose a theoretical Guardsman posts “Potus is a big-fat-meanie” on their Facepage or Mybook or whatever the kids are using these days... IF the post was made by the Guardsmen in a non-duty status, does ANYONE have jurisdiction? And IF they have jurisdiction, what is the probability that 1: The post will be seen, 2: The post will be connected in some way to the National Guard, 3: The State MJP will perceive jurisdiction and 4: The State MJP will desire to invest human capital in investigation and prosecution and 5: ANYTHING will actually ever happen?

In the end, this is less a question of what one CAN do, but what one SHOULD do. I advise my Soldiers to remember that they are always ambassadors of the Military, and more importantly, the Guard. Many times, the exercise of personal freedom creates collective consequences. There is an element of the public that believes one person speaking in uniform reflects ALL members of the military. There is also an element in the Active component that believes ONE act by a Guardsmen represents ALL Guardsmen. I tell my Soldiers therefore that while they perhaps have more personal freedom than the Active military, they also have more professional responsibilities to their brothers and sisters in the Active Reserve, and Guard components.

In the end it is not a matter of UCMJ. In 99.99999% of cases involving military want-wittery: The Honorable Squad Leader will assume the bench in the High Court of Many Push Ups and the individual will eventually lack the arm strength to text for several days.

CAVEAT: While I am not a Lawyer or a JAG, I was once a Specialist and therefore have a pretty firm grasp on this sort of thing…

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 4 at 2014 9:49 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 21:49:58 -0400

To me, it depends of the format that they are "bashing" the POTUS. Soldiers will bitch about things, to include leadership. As long as that bitching is not undermining good order and discipline, then it is good to allow soldiers to vent. It's when soldiers try to make a political point or try to influence other soldiers is when they cross the line IMHO. Good example is here. I consider this our "water cooler" and you are my "peers". When you bitch in here, I know you are representing your personal opinions, which, even in the military, you are still allowed to have. But if you were to suddenly appear in uniform on CNN saying how much you detest the POTUS, that is a different story.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 4 at 2014 11:54 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 23:54:31 -0400

I find it disgusting and offensive and mostly misinformed.

Response by CPT Jacob Swartout made Jul 6 at 2014 10:20 AM

CPT Jacob Swartout — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 10:20:14 -0400

That is a good way to get you in trouble while serving in the military. Sometimes you have to remind them who the Commander-in-Chief is and their enlistment oath they swore. You don't have to always agree with the policies, laws, etc but you better show some respect for the position he holds.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jul 6 at 2014 3:03 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 15:03:23 -0400

What is "Bashing?"
I feel like it is completely appropriate to be intelligently critical of the president when he deserves it.

As it pertains to non-military issues, I think you have a right to voice your opinion like any free-citizen.

As it pertains to military matters a certain amount of decorum must be employed and you should be mindful of who might see your comment, but the criticism in and of itself isn't wrong.

The above applies to service members. For veterans, we are free to criticize away as we see fit.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 17 at 2014 10:55 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:55:40 -0400

He isn't my President. When he is properly vetted, perhaps then I would feel differently about him.

But seeing as this scandal plagued lead from behind loser has only managed to come up with computer generated forgeries to establish his eligibility and those who know too much about him keep dying under mysterious circumstances... I'm of the opinion he can be nothing else but a fraud! Obama is completely undeserving of the office which he is currently squatting in, and rightly belongs in jail for a number of scandals he has been implicated in, plus treason.

History will bear this out when the truth finally comes to light.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Jul 17 at 2014 11:44 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:44:26 -0400

IMHO, those who are currently on active duty would be well advised to keep their comments as personal statements and not make any reference to their military rank and/or status, simply as protection for themselves. Can you imagine any unit where members are free to criticize or "bash" their unit commander?

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 19 at 2014 12:55 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:55:50 -0400

Did you mean bash as in "criticize harshly"? Nice to know you are thinking about what your limitations are as a member of the armed forces.

Soon you will be an officer, and by the way, congratulations on your selection to the Warrant Officer program. The oath you take as an officer will be different than the one you took as an enlisted man. The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Strangely enough, the oath you will swear does not include a promise to obey the orders of the President, nor does it make reference to the UCMJ. Have you any idea why there is a difference? Would be interesting to find out.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2014 1:39 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:39:55 -0400

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. While I'm duty-bound to carry out the lawful orders of those appointed over me (including the POTUS) that doesn't mean I have to agree with their positions or policies. If you want to voice your opinion, as long as it's not on national television, I don't have a problem with that.

Response by CW4(P) Detrottus Thomas made Jul 19 at 2014 6:19 PM

CW4(P) Detrottus Thomas — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:19:10 -0400

I believe that liking a post or sharing a news article on FB that bash POTUS is just as bad as actually speaking the defaming content yourself. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion but the line is crossed when those opinions are expressed publicly. I think everyone would agree that it would be career suicide to go on social media and bash their brigade commander, so why would one believe that it's ok to bash our "Commander" in Chief. I just don't get it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2014 8:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:07:30 -0400

I will sum my thoughts on this topic with the following: Officers-UCMJ Article 88, Enlisted-UCMJ Article 134. Frankly, who the CinC is shouldn't matter, to quote the late Roy Bohem in a meeting with them President Kennedy "I didn't vote for you sir, but I'll die for you"

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 4:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:17:06 -0400

I'll say this, I will not disrespect the Commander and Chief, but I feel we are headed in the wrong direction as a country and a global leader.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 4:47 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:47:02 -0400

I agree that it is disrespectful and kinda douchey but the only oath I remember taking was to support and defend the Constitution and to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed above me...Article 88 of the UCMJ only applies to Commissioned Officers. So while a dick move, i personally have bigger fish to fry. If I got upset at every currently serving military member who was a dick I would be angry at half the service.

Article 88 - "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."

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 5:35 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:35:08 -0400

I do not agree with everything our president does. However, I will not openly disrespect or put down our commander in chief on social media outlets because he is that... my commander in chief. Those members that are doing so are being disrespectful to a commander and in effect, being insubordinate. You are entitled to your opinion and to free speech but you are also duty bound to respect your commander in chief.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 7:28 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:28:52 -0400

Troops need and outlet, it used to be the club (it was divided by O's, E's and leadership levels for a reason) but the clubs are fairly outdated. Social media can be like speaking out in public, or like having a discussion with friends in your home. It depends on how liberal you are in the use of the "friend" button. Next, how does the person represent themselves on social media, by their service, rank, position, or by their name? These are variables that make the subject less clear cut. The next variable that should be considered, is the troop being negative about the President or the Commander in Chief. And before you jump right on it's the same...is it? For those who jump immediately on the PME answer of "No, it is disrespectful and inappropriate for a service member to be negative about the President." it's time for some critical thinking. If a service member is not to say anything negative about the President, they should also not be able to say anything positive about the President. And since we are expected to be apolitical, maybe all politicians should be restricted from using us as backdrops for photo-op speaking tours when discussing anything other than matters of direct military significance? Troops, in the role of representing themselves as service members should not publicly slander command decisions by their commanders or the Commander. However, I feel, Social, political, and military decisions should be considered separate. To be "actionable", as the new catch phrase goes, there has to be more than just the troop said something bad about the President (remember the rule covers prior Presidents also). Yes, as a service member I understand I have lost, or in degrees mitigated, many of my rights. But if I do or do not like the policies of a President as they effect me as a citizen, I have the right to share those feelings with friends. I have the responsibility to represent myself as me the citizen, not as me the service member. Let's remember one very important concept, we as United States service members take an oath to the Constitution of the United States first and foremost. To all others above us in command we have within that oath that we will follow their (lawful) orders.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 9:08 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:08:58 -0400

Too easy to take the regimental PME answer of No, to negatively comment on social media about the President is inappropriate and wrong. Too easy, and not the right answer, even according to the JAG. Before the web we had the club, divided by E's, O's and even level of rank. This permitted much discussion about the condition of the world, the force, the unit. The clubs are inconsequential anymore. Social media is how people communicate anymore, it is the club or the living room where we bitch, vent, bemoan, or just share our opinions. Let me state, I am ok with service members using social media to express their opinions both political and social. I do believe we have responsibilities to not represent our opinions as that of the service, the gov't, etc. We have a responsibility to practice keeping our social pages as secure as possible from those who don't personally know us. Far too many are quick to accept any "friend" request. What one says on their personal page to be shared amongst their friends is different than what might express on a group page (such as this). We as service members have mitigated our rights by choosing to serve, but that doesn't mean we've relinquished them to become automatons for which ever commander we currently serve or which party is in the majority of our gov't. Also, I feel, there is a difference between venting and subversion. I do not see the term President and Commander in Chief as universally synonymous in restraining our (service member's) opinions or comments when the subject is social policies. They are different roles performed in parallel. If it effects me in my military duties I am far more restrictive of who I speak with. If it effects me as a citizen I will share my opinion. If I do it on a site such as this it won't include "That SOB..." How any mature service member feels about what another member says on social media about the President, or other governmental leaders (or even military leadership) needs to take the full picture into account. If the answer is as service members we are to be apolitical at all times then maybe we shouldn't be able to say anything positive or negative about governmental leadership and conversely they should not be allowed to use us as back drops for photo-op speaking events. It's ok for us to be professional military and citizens.