The Cone Of Silence Over Active Duty Members & Civilians

[Misty]

It's because they've been threatened with disciplinary action if they open their mouths.

1st, its never ok to disparage your CO in a public manner. 2nd, I've never heard of any widespread policy that soldiers that will face disciplinary action if "they open their mouths".

Then what is freedom of speech all about? Hmmmmm

 

[bodecea]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

It's always been that way, you know.

 

[SteadyMercury]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

I don't see the irony of it.

The military is different than civilian, it cannot operate efficiently without a chain of command and the associated expectations regarding respecting those above you in it. We also try to keep the military out of politics so there is never a perception of the military being anything but subservient to the elected civilian leadership in this country.

When I was serving it was pretty well understood what the boundaries were, and to be honest I don't recall anyone having a problem with it or bumping into the trouble zone like this marine did. You can sit in a bar with your friends being as critical as you want, hell you can even throw on jeans and a t-shirt to go march in a parade protesting your elected leaders. You cannot, however, clearly tie your military affiliation to political statements and threaten to selectively obey orders.

 

[Connery]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

Individuals who join the military are subject the provisions if the Uniform Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." Also, the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution addresses this where, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militias, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." There are several "articles" that could speak to this issue, however, Article 88 Contempt Toward Officials is one that expressly prohibits a particular activity.

"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS:
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."

"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."
Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

 

[Borillar]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

When I was in the Navy, I was told "You are here to defend democracy, not practice it."

 

[theHawk]

If they're going to start jailing military and civil service civilians for mouthing off about Obama, the jails would get full real quick.

Most of them can't stand Obama.

 

[Oldguy]

"During the Bush Administration the press repeatedly featured active-duty soldiers that were critical of the war in Iraq. These days you never hear of any G.I. critics of Obama. Why is this?"

THAT was the initial question posed by mudwhistle.

Why is everybody tap-dancing around answering the question, and going off on tangents?

Is it because everybody knows the ANSWER?

Gen. McCrystal comes to mind first and that was all over the news.

Can you name any others?

 

[bodecea]

If they're going to start jailing military and civil service civilians for mouthing off about Obama, the jails would get full real quick.

Most of them can't stand Obama.

Link?

 

[gallantwarrior]

So are you suggesting all the millions of members in our armed forces should just make casual judgement calls on who in their chain of command is an enemy or interpreting the constitution to their liking before following orders?

There is definitely some gray area on following orders but it is a lot smaller than people seem to think, and deciding the president is evil based on some stuff you read online isn't it.

Actions speak more loudly than words. You are not alone in your blindness. More the shame, really.

So is that a yes or a no?

I spoke to some of my young enlisted acquaintances and they gave me a different view. The military is pretty pissed off about the way they are being treated, especially the way the military funding cuts are working at their level (different discussion). What I was told is that the press either does not interview military members, or they hush up the interviews because they are so damning. I guess soldiers bad-mouthing Bush 43 was a hot ticket for the press but soldiers criticizing the current CinC is not news worthy enough for publication. There's plenty of criticism of the current WH occupant, it just isn't publicized.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's always been against the rules for soldiers in uniform to publicly criticize their commanders or the Commander in Chief. If you don't think so, ask Gen. Stanley McCrystal or Douglas MacArthur. Or, Eric Shinseki or George McClelland.

I agree with you, but I can also see the reason for the rule. Bottom line, when you join the military you are signing away your rights while you are enlisted and you know that going in.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

Individuals who join the military are subject the provisions if the Uniform Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." Also, the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution addresses this where, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militias, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." There are several "articles" that could speak to this issue, however, Article 88 Contempt Toward Officials is one that expressly prohibits a particular activity.

"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS:
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."

"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."
Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

The Article applies specifically commissioned officers. The reason being, their commission derives directly from Congress, i.e. elected officials appointed over them. Non-commissioned officers are not held to the same rule in this case. Non-coms are, however, bound to obey the commissioned officers appointed over them. It's a gray area, and traditionally, non-coms should refrain from criticizing elected officials, too.

 

[Connery]

It's ironic that the military fights for our freedoms, including the freedom of speech, yet they aren't allowed to speak freely.

Individuals who join the military are subject the provisions if the Uniform Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." Also, the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution addresses this where, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militias, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." There are several "articles" that could speak to this issue, however, Article 88 Contempt Toward Officials is one that expressly prohibits a particular activity.

"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS:
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."

"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."
Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

The Article applies specifically commissioned officers. The reason being, their commission derives directly from Congress, i.e. elected officials appointed over them. Non-commissioned officers are not held to the same rule in this case. Non-coms are, however, bound to obey the commissioned officers appointed over them. It's a gray area, and traditionally, non-coms should refrain from criticizing elected officials, too.

Article 134 the "general article" would apply separately.

"ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

 

[gallantwarrior]

Individuals who join the military are subject the provisions if the Uniform Code of Military Justice pursuant to Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." Also, the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution addresses this where, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militias, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." There are several "articles" that could speak to this issue, however, Article 88 Contempt Toward Officials is one that expressly prohibits a particular activity.

"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS:
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."

"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."
Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

The Article applies specifically commissioned officers. The reason being, their commission derives directly from Congress, i.e. elected officials appointed over them. Non-commissioned officers are not held to the same rule in this case. Non-coms are, however, bound to obey the commissioned officers appointed over them. It's a gray area, and traditionally, non-coms should refrain from criticizing elected officials, too.

Article 134 the "general article" would apply separately.

"ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

A catch-all but not a specific prohibition, as is Article 88.

 

[Connery]

The Article applies specifically commissioned officers. The reason being, their commission derives directly from Congress, i.e. elected officials appointed over them. Non-commissioned officers are not held to the same rule in this case. Non-coms are, however, bound to obey the commissioned officers appointed over them. It's a gray area, and traditionally, non-coms should refrain from criticizing elected officials, too.

Article 134 the "general article" would apply separately.

"ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

A catch-all but not a specific prohibition, as is Article 88.

That is why it is called the "general article". Here is an example, "United States v. Wilcox, 66 M.J. 442 (the CAAF’s jurisprudence on charged violations of Article 134, UCMJ, involving speech recognizes the importance of the context of that speech; consistent with the focus on context necessary to establish a violation of Article 134, UCMJ, while speech that would be impervious to criminal sanction in the civilian world may be proscribed in the military, the CAAF has long recognized that when assessing a criminal violation implicating the First Amendment, the proper balance must be struck between the essential needs of the armed services and the right to speak out as a free American; necessarily, the CAAF must be sensitive to protection of the principle of free thought; prior to applying this balancing test to a charged violation of Article 134, UCMJ, involving speech, two threshold determinations must be made: first, the speech involved must be examined to determine whether it is otherwise protected under the First Amendment, and second, the government must have proved the elements of an Article 134, UCMJ, offense)."