PDA

View Full Version : UCMJ Article 88 and Article 94



Odysseus
11-05-2008, 10:41 AM
I know that the veterans' forum is supposed to be apolitical, and I'm saying this, not because I have any love for our new Commander-In-Chief, but because all of us took an oath and, regardless of the whims of the electorate, that oath is what makes us who we are. Towards that end, I am reminding all currently serving military personnel, myself included, of the text of Articles 88 and 94 of the UCMJ:


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.

ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

I have no doubt that the executive branch will now be scrutinizing the armed forces for breaches of conduct in this area. I advise all military personnel to ensure that our disagreements with the policies and positions of our new chain of command be expressed in a respectful and professional manner, and that we remember that we speak only for ourselves and not our branches of service.

vetwife
11-05-2008, 12:55 PM
Thanks for the post.

marinejcksn
11-06-2008, 05:42 AM
Roger that, Sir!

Does article 88 cover President-elects? :p

KCornett
11-06-2008, 07:19 AM
Blissfully,
I am neither a commisioned officer, or can my time spent on this board be considered duty.

I, KCornett, do solemnly swear 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.

I will obey the orders of the President, until they contradict with the constitution. In which case, I expect to be standing with the Officers appointed over me to rectify that situation.

Molon Labe
11-06-2008, 07:56 AM
I know that the veterans' forum is supposed to be apolitical, and I'm saying this, not because I have any love for our new Commander-In-Chief, but because all of us took an oath and, regardless of the whims of the electorate, that oath is what makes us who we are. Towards that end, I am reminding all currently serving military personnel, myself included, of the text of Articles 88 and 94 of the UCMJ:



I have no doubt that the executive branch will now be scrutinizing the armed forces for breaches of conduct in this area. I advise all military personnel to ensure that our disagreements with the policies and positions of our new chain of command be expressed in a respectful and professional manner, and that we remember that we speak only for ourselves and not our branches of service.

Another good reason Odysseus to come to a message board as a "citizen" and not a member of the Armed forces. Nobody here will certainly hold it against you if you have anything disparaging to say about the new President.

Odysseus
11-06-2008, 01:39 PM
Roger that, Sir!

Does article 88 cover President-elects? :p
Yep.

Blissfully,
I am neither a commisioned officer, or can my time spent on this board be considered duty.

I, KCornett, do solemnly swear 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.

I will obey the orders of the President, until they contradict with the constitution. In which case, I expect to be standing with the Officers appointed over me to rectify that situation.
Don't forget the part about any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, troop.

Another good reason Odysseus to come to a message board as a "citizen" and not a member of the Armed forces. Nobody here will certainly hold it against you if you have anything disparaging to say about the new President.
I won't disparage him. I will express any disagreements respectfully, just as I hope to express any agreements with him (I can dream). The articles refer specifically to contemptuous words and sedition, places that we shouldn't go anyway.

KCornett
11-07-2008, 04:17 PM
Yep.

Don't forget the part about any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, troop.

.

Respectfully, Sir..
That is part of the Officer's Oath, not enlisted.

I am not sure, Sir, but I believe that the loyalty to the Constitution trumps the President's orders if they are contradictory

Odysseus
11-07-2008, 04:46 PM
Respectfully, Sir..
That is part of the Officer's Oath, not enlisted.

I am not sure, Sir, but I believe that the loyalty to the Constitution trumps the President's orders if they are contradictory

It does. But you can't go on the assumption that the Commander-In-Chief intends to violate the Constitution the moment that he takes office.

Look, I'm just as disappointed with this as everyone else here, but one of the critical functions of our republic is that we accept the rule of law and the expression of the will of the people, which means that when our side loses an election, we suck it up and drive on. In this case, it means that we have a new commander-in-chief and we have an obligation to obey his orders so long as we wear the uniform. If his orders become so odious that we cannot do so in good conscience, then that's another issue, but that hasn't happened yet. Whining about the unfairness of the process and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the results is what liberals do when they don't get their way. We have to be better than that, because we have a responsibility to the nation. We can't afford the luxury of being spoiled, ignorant children. That's the DUmmies' job.

KCornett
11-08-2008, 12:21 AM
It does. But you can't go on the assumption that the Commander-In-Chief intends to violate the Constitution the moment that he takes office.

Look, I'm just as disappointed with this as everyone else here, but one of the critical functions of our republic is that we accept the rule of law and the expression of the will of the people, which means that when our side loses an election, we suck it up and drive on. In this case, it means that we have a new commander-in-chief and we have an obligation to obey his orders so long as we wear the uniform. If his orders become so odious that we cannot do so in good conscience, then that's another issue, but that hasn't happened yet. Whining about the unfairness of the process and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the results is what liberals do when they don't get their way. We have to be better than that, because we have a responsibility to the nation. We can't afford the luxury of being spoiled, ignorant children. That's the DUmmies' job.


You are correct, Sir, and I stated that I will fulfill my Oath to the utmost of my ability. If the President issues orders to for all the military to wear purple and gold, then that is what I will do. I will, as stated, follow the orders of the President, regardless of whom the President actually is, up until the point that the orders are contradictory to the Constitution. I will continue to enforce the standards and I have already corrected Jr Soldiers about disrespecting Obama. I will not do so in uniform or in front of Soldiers that are assigned under me. A group of other Senior NCOs that share my beliefs and we are having a private discussion, well that is a different situation.