Uniform Code of Military Justice

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.

Apparently all other non-military cabinet secretaries are fair game.

At least I'm 90% sure that's the case

pfffffft

Have a blissful evening and when you find time talk to any field or flag grade officer, active or retired, about the UCMJ.

:hi:

behavior tells me that much of the honor and codes conduct of the military are a farce.

assertion that "the honor and codes conduct of the military are a farce."

but I don't know that much about it. Why would art 88 not apply?

UCMJ article you cite.

That's why if you have an opportunity discuss the UCMJ with a field or flag officer because they may have commanded troops.

Commanders have authority under the UCMJ and will know more about it than other military personnel.

That's why I asked. Please reread the post:

I thought it made sense...
but I don't know that much about it. Why would art 88 not apply?

Civility is your friend.

credible sources and providing links to them to support an assertion.

Sorry but I don't have the time.

I'll relate one tale, whether true or not doesn't matter.

A young, inexperienced captain was going to impose nonjudicial punishment upon one of his troops.

The first sergeant brought the trooper into the captain's office and stood him at attention.

The captain read all the official documents ending with reduction in rank and a fine.

The captain then asked the trooper if he had any question.

The trooper asked "Sir, what could you do to me if I called you a dirty, low-down, SOB?"

The captain after a moment said, "Private I could sentence you to 30 days in jail and other punishment."

The trooper then asked, "Sir, what could you do to me if I thought that?

The captain hesitated and then replied "Private I couldn't prove that so I could not punish you."

The trooper then said "Sir, I'm thinking that."

Whether the tale is true or not doesn't really matter but it does show how ingenious people can be in coping with authority.

Sorry if I digressed so far from your question.

Actually, that was very illuminating. :hi:

I just posted the article as it is applicable to the situation at hand.

If Mcrystal did what the RS article suggests, he is guilty of violating that article. I wasn't there.

There is, of course, a difference between being guilty and suffering any consequence for it.

I have no way of knowing if officers in the military treat the UMCMJ as a joke. Is that article ever enforced? I don't know and am not claiming to.

But I assure you it was not meant as a joke. The only exposure I have ever had to this particuar code was as a graduate assistant to a Judge who taught criminal procedure who happened to have been in JAG. He used the code frequently in class. I assure you he did not see it as a joke either.

As far as a prima facie case, I would only leave you with another legal maxim: res ipsa locquitur.

And, in case you wondered, I am an attorney.

Based on previous rulings, there are limitations on prosecution under article 88. Most relevant here: "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.

"Contempt" under Article 88, does not preclude officers from stating their disagreement with the current political leadership, or from making embarassing statements about them. It's generally regarded as a bad career move, but it's not "contempt". "Contempt" to be chargeable, is more generally defined as an accusation against an individual. "I don't like Obama" <--not chargeable. "Obama seemed distracted when I was talking about something important." <-- not chargeable. "Obama is a poor leader and we will lose because of him" <--chargeable.

Article 89 doesn't matter, because the President is not a commissioned officer.

I claim no special knowledge as to the prior enforcement of or case law relating to that article.

It might not apply, but I resent the fact that jody dismissed the post as a joke.

The Article 89 post was cut & post error,

attributed to McChrystal that in any way could justify even the most gentle hint to "cool it" from Obama.

The following quote from the RS article captures an exchange between a combat commander and his most trusted staff preparing for Q&A grilling of McChrystal.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236