Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Question for the DU vets about speaking ill of superiors.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
moof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:49 AM
Original message
Question for the DU vets about speaking ill of superiors.
Edited on Tue May-25-04 07:51 AM by moof
Is there some protocal that basically forbids military personal from saying anything negative about the military while they are active ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes.
Disrespect of any sort is illegal and it doesn't even have to be verbal...non-verbal gets the same sort of punishment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, it's called
insubordination. <s>

It's why Bush like to speak before military audiences. Those not buying the BS know better than to express that view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. No, there is not.
Not against the military as a whole. I'm on active duty, and if I want to say the Air Force or the army or the navy sucks, I can do so. If I want to say the military is full of dumb assholes, I can say that too. However, one CANNOT say insulting things about one's superiors. And officers cannot disparage other officers (even of equal or lesser rank) in front of enlisted personnel or officers junior to the officer being disparaged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. This is particularly a UCMJ issue...
... relating to enlisted personnel. An enlisted person making general and unspecific complaints about an officer or the military cannot be tried--however, an officer making complaints about the commander-in-chief or the military hierarchy can be tried for insubordination.

This has nothing to do with, however, the obligation to disobey an unlawful order--that is clearly specified in the UCMJ for both officers and enlisted personnel.

The military equivalent of slander of an officer, by an officer or an enlisted man is actionable, but it has to be a specific charge--it cannot be simply, "so and so is an asshole." It has to be related to a specific charge of wrongdoing by another service member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. No, that is not the case
If I refer to my superior officer as an asshole, to either another military member or to my superior's face, that is a violation of the UCMJ: disrespect to a superior commissioned officer and conduct unbecoming. Same as if an enlisted person called me an asshole and was overheard by another military member. It is conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, disrespect, and (if the person is an NCO) conduct unbecoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Note: I said general, not specific...
A negative comment directed specifically to a specific superior is actionable. That's not what I said. Read the UCMJ. General comments are protected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. You said:
"it cannot be simply, "so and so is an asshole." Yes it can. If I say to my co-worker, you know that Col Smith(the so and so in your analogy)? He's an asshole! Then I have just committed a UCMJ offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Here we go again, 'eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. You might learn something
or, maybe not! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Your absolutely right young lady, I can learn something from
most anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. BTW, I would hope your not on taxpayers time while your banging away
on these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. It's none of your concern, but
1. I am on convalescent leave
2. When I am at work, I sometimes work shifts, so you never know when I might be on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Your right young lady, it is none of my concern, but
I do worry about the taxpayers getting ripped off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Fear not,
I pay taxes as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Isn't employment wonderful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. Yes, it is
That's with education, discipline, and focus gets you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. You know,
your "young lady" remark is very condescending and sexist, don't you? If you have a problem with me, let's take it it PM so we don't bore everyone else with our petty differences. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Our petty differences? LOL!!
You are at least forty years younger than I'm, so addressing you as a young lady is neither condescending or sexist by any stretch of the imagination except in your narrow minded world. And you should feel complimented, not unless your an old prude.

I was born in 1933 what year were you born?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. The term
"Young Lady" is frequently used to "put women in their place." I don't appreciate it. In the military, one does not use the term "young lady" as a form of address, it is presumed to be unprofessional. If you were to describe a young solider as, "the young lady over there," that would be fine.

A gentleman never asks a lady her age. :-) But, you are not 40 years, or more, older than I. Another assumption gone wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Then you should take it as a compliment and not as a
derogatory term.
As far as I'm concerned your a 'Barkley Hunt.' If your older than I suspect, you'll know the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. I'll take it as I
like. As I said, I see it as condescending.

Wow a BIG man! Using a euphemism to refer to a woman with the most vile word available. Your mommy must be so proud of you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. It was not meant to be considered harsh, blunt, or offensive
in any shape way or form. In fact you may even take it as being auspicious.

Not wise to surmise, young lady!





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. I suppose referring to me as another vile term--Barkley Hunt
was not meant to offend either? Please. You think I don't know what that means? Like I said, your mommy must be so proud of you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Okay... some of the code:

Here's specific mention of insubordination, and it makes no mention of grumbling:

(1) Mutiny. Article 94( a)(1) defines two types of mutiny, both requiring an intent to usurp or override military authority.

(a) Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance may be committed by one person acting alone or by more than one acting together.

(b) Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties requires collective insubordination and necessarily includes some combination of two or more persons in resisting lawful military authority. This concert of insubordination need not be preconceived, nor is it necessary that the insubordination be active or violent. It may consist simply of a persistent and concerted refusal or omission to obey orders, or to do duty, with an insubordinate intent, that is, with an intent to usurp or override lawful military authority. The intent may be declared in words or inferred from acts, omissions, or surrounding circumstances.

With regard to grumbling by enlisted personnel (which I address) toward superiors or the commander-in-chief in general:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030619_falvy....

Further, I think that no formal courts-martial proceedings could apply Articles 88 and 91 in the context of other than direct face-to-face confrontations of subordinate to superior.

If you are enlisted and work in an outfit in which everyone tattles on you for complaining about the boss and are courts-martialed for the offense, you and your peers would spend all your time in front of brass, rather than doing the job.

I'm talking about the military and the UCMJ, not the apparently chickenshit outfit you serve in. If you really believe that bitching about upstairs to a peer in private is a violation of the code, you really need to get out, now. Sorry, man, but that's warped. Public--that's another matter. That gets you in trouble. I'm not talking about calling the OIC a jerk to his face in front of witnesses. I'm referring to simple bitching--the code does protect against prosecution for that.

It's the soldier's right to complain. Find me a JAG who doesn't support that.

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. If that peer turns you IN
then you have a problem, period. And yes, the UCMJ does protect simple bitching and whining. Calling your OIC a jerk after he or she has left the room, and if overheard by a jerk, will land you in hot water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. You can't say that stuff
Not in the press. At the barracks is fine, but you say that stuff in the papers and you are going down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. BS
I can say that the army is full of neo-nazi skinheads all I like. I can say that the Navy is made up of a bunch of mommas' boys who all drink too much and screw prostitutes all day long. I can say that, in general, the leadership of the Air Force sucks. I'd be under pressure to support those assertions, but just saying it is not a UCMJ offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneighty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
36. Hey! I resemble that remark
What you said-I was born of woman-a Momma's boy! I often drank all day and frequently did that other thing too.

But just because this sailor boy was like that does not give you the right to tell all the whole world.

You are on report!

180
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Cool!
I've never been on report before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Another Bill C. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. UCMJ
888. 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.
889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Looks like they'll have to amend that article
and replace the Secretary of Transportation with the Secretary of Homeland Defense...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. "The Army takes care of it's own!"
As long as you play the game the lifers will support and protect you! When you don't go along with the program the lifers will all turn against you! The "Band Of Brothers" deal goes to the top of the chain of command and it is not always a good thing! Step out of line and they will ALL step on you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. LIFER
Lazy
Incompetent
Fucker
Expecting
Retirement

LIFER
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. NCO
NO
CHANCE
OUTSIDE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Never heard that one before! N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Yeah,
Making $100K a year too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. $100k a year torturing shackled lady prisoners for Bushco?
Or Wal-Mart? Don't forget the jobless recovery your Chief is lying about also!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LagaLover Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Well the folks who did that
weren't all lifers. You gotta be an O-4 or to make that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. Not all of Them
Just the selected few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
35. Officer's Code
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:07 AM by Hubert Flottz
Snip>

"As an officer, your most valuable possession is your character. The code means nothing unless officers of character execute customs and traditions. Of the many qualities that comprise an officer's character, three of the most essential will be reviewed."

Snip>

First - "HONOR. This implies the strict adherence to actions and principles considered to be right. Your honor is your proudest possession. Your word and signature are your bonds. You shouldn't quibble or slant the truth. State the facts, regardless of the outcome. Any decision you make should be fair and devoid of bias or favoritism."

snip>

Second - "LOYALTY. As an officer you owe loyalty to the nation, the Commander-in-Chief, superiors, peers, and subordinates."

snip>

Third - "DUTY. This is the conduct required by your sense of obligation, justice, and morality. The concept of duty is broad and means service to your country, superiors, and subordinates. Also, It means performance of all tasks regardless of personal risk or discomfort. Your performance of duty, therefore, requires unqualified dedication, acceptance, and seeking of responsibility, obedience, and courage."

http://www.benning.army.mil/iobc/customs/officer_code.h...

The explainations for each rule are laid out in the entire piece!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
40. If I understand your question correctly
Edited on Tue May-25-04 10:32 AM by Dhalgren
the answer is no, there is nothing stopping any active duty member from saying "anything negative about the military". And you can say anything, at all, to or about anyone as long is it is truthful and you say it with respect. Now that is for the legal ramifications, not the personal. Many officers in the military are martinettes in that they take thier position extremely seriously. And many of them are not above taking personal retribution on an enlisted person or a junior officer. If a military member is a witness to a crime - regardless of who committs that crime - he/she is obligated to report it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC