If you read further down in Article 88 and the other one that applies to enlisted members (Article 89), you can actually criticize the policies and actions of those listed in an open debate situation, a classroom situation, and put it to press. In practice, this is still not done however (from my experience). I had to correct a Lt. Colonel of 24 years on that when he tried to slam another classmate for "dissent" during a political discussion at our Arabic language class. The assignment was to debate American politics, in Arabic, being able to formulate opinions and such. The girl (another E-4) was openly slamming administration policy (also allowed under article 88) on Iraq. You can criticize policy and law to your heart's content, you just can't make any personal attacks on the listed individuals. The UCMJ is actually one of the most "liberal", fair, and advanced (not to mention "simple and easy to read") set of laws that govern anyone in this country. I just hate to see it trashed like it has been in the last 3 years since I've been out.
Here's the rest of Article 88, just so it's not taken out of context:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitive … /mcm88.htm
Full text of article 88 - not including defenses (on the books elsewhere)
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/ … 134410.htm
This is the current general order regarding political activities of those in uniform, it has been subtlely changed over the last 3 years. Disobeying this carries the lesser charge of "Disobeying an order", Article 90(?) Basically, this just says you can't attend political functions (rallies and such) in uniform while you are active duty, you can't give money or gifts to service members running for office, and you can't run for office while you have a service obligation when it would take you away from your military duties. It doesn't countermand article 88 in any way.
Here's the rest of Article 88, just so it's not taken out of context:
The intention of the article is just so you can't say "STFU" to a superior officer, and shouldn't in any way prohibit political expression.Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. 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 rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitive … /mcm88.htm
Full text of article 88 - not including defenses (on the books elsewhere)
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/ … 134410.htm
This is the current general order regarding political activities of those in uniform, it has been subtlely changed over the last 3 years. Disobeying this carries the lesser charge of "Disobeying an order", Article 90(?) Basically, this just says you can't attend political functions (rallies and such) in uniform while you are active duty, you can't give money or gifts to service members running for office, and you can't run for office while you have a service obligation when it would take you away from your military duties. It doesn't countermand article 88 in any way.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2006-11-17 01:08:19)