“ 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.”
These are some of the words affirmed and lived by military members from enlistment through the end of their military career. The fundamental question is what reduced level of Free Speech do military service members experience and understand? This question is examined and addressed by Major John Loran Kiel, Jr, in the paper titled “When Soldiers Speak Out: A Survey of Provisions Limiting Freedom of Speech in the Military.”
Campus protests were prevalent during the Vietnam War, however many are unaware of the massive protests that took place on US military barracks, bases and ships at home and abroad. Protests stretched from West Point to South East Asia staged by men disillusioned with the ongoing war and documented in the film “Sir! No Sir !“ Military service members were arrested for violating military directives against free speech and were confined in stockades home and abroad.
There are two Department of Defense directives (DODD) that govern political speech in the military DOD Directive 1325.6 and DOD Directive 1344.10. The DOD Directive 1344.10 specifies the types of appropriate political activities for active-duty service members while DOD Directive 1325.6 counsels commanders to preserve the service member’s right of expression while cautioning not to ignore conduct that could destroy the effectiveness of their units.
Prompted by the access to the Internet, the military has taken steps to limit the use of blogs requiring service members to receive consent from commanders. The Facebook page Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots initiated by United States Marine Corps Sergeant Gary Stein encourages service members to exercise their free speech rights.
Declaring that “he wouldn’t follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama” Stein further commented “Just because I’m a Marine doesn’t mean I don’t have free speech or can’t say my personal opinion about the president or other public official just like anybody else,” he further added “The Constitution trumps everything else.” What Stein fails to realize, is that this issue has been previously litigated.
While a crime under Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888, for only commissioned military officers to use contemptuous words against the President and Congress, the Department of Defense (DoD) expanded this further with the inclusion of enlisted personnel through DOD Directive 1344.10. The DoD directive prohibit participation in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.
During a recent campaign rally, a uniformed Army reservist was photographed on stage with a Presidential candidate, a violation of DOD Directive 1344.10.
In the case of the United States v. Howe, an Army Lieutenant was court martialed and ultimately convicted for participation in an antiwar demonstration. Specifically Howe was carrying a picket sign 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.
What is ever apparent is that military service members do not fully understand their limitations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Constitution. They may have affirmed ” to Protect and Defend the Constitution” yet do they fully understand the meaning? Before their voices sound off ” that’s against the Constitution, or that’s Unconstitutional maybe they need to read the entire document not just the Bill of Rights, maybe they also need to read the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and finally the Treaty of Tripoli. Maybe after reading these documents they’ll understand when they affirm their oath to defend the Constitution “against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Maybe we all should read these documents then we as a society would not collectively make outlandish statements.
