I think you might be correct under Article 88, as this is a display of a political discussion or statement, which is allowed, and should be be viewed as non-contemptuous under that article. However, there is always Article 133, which is generally added-in, as is Article 134 for enlisted, when preferring charges?

Also, the statement "Impeach Obama" on it's face is a legally permissible action, though might run afoul of ones mentioned by Tyrtaios . On the other hand, a "F* Obama" sticker would be much more clearly contemptuous towards the President.

As to a ban on bumper stickers, under DOD Directive 1344.10 a service member may:

4.1.1.8. Display a political bumper sticker on the member’s private vehicle.

but may not:

4.1.2.11. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a
bumper sticker) on a private vehicle.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

While the first amendment embodies our nation's most cherished values, it simply incorrect to assume that the freedom of speech extends to service members in the same way that it does to civilians. Besides UCMJ, Army Regulations give "specific guidance on those political activities that are permitted or prohibited." While "Soldier on active duty may...Display a political sticker on the Soldier’s private vehicle," among other activities "a Soldier on active
duty will not...Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in Section 888, Title 10, United States Code (10
USC 888)." This applies to all soldiers on active duty, whether officer or enlisted.

Does a bumper sticker stating "IMPEACH OBAMA" constitute contemptuous words? I am no lawyer, but I have been a Commander and believe that Commanders have the authority to make that judgement call using reason and common sense. Thankfully, the regulation allows for that. "Some activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this policy. In determining whether an activity violates the traditional concept that military personnel should not engage in partisan political activity, rules of reason and common sense will apply."

As dear as free speech is to our nation, the principle of civilian control of the military is just as important. As professionals, it is our responsibility to enforce our own norms of behavior. The regulation is clear. Overt partisanship is to be avoided. I'd lend the soldier my scraper.

Agreed, sir. That soldier is creating a bad atmosphere in his unit, so that should allow his commander to tell him to take it off. I've heard of similar circumstances with soldiers displaying the confederate flag.

"That First Amendment stuff — that's crap!"

Gian, you've got a lot going for your good ideas. This ain't one of them.

Sir, but I think if he bit back, you'd lose that one -- and that would be worse for good order and discipline. For that matter I think you'd breed resentments and risk splitting the squadron on political lines.

I mean, I'm generally left-wing, but I would've found the same sentiments on a bumper sticker repulsive when directed against, say, President Bush, and it's nothing to do with military: it's just random extremism tossed into the void.

But it's the soldier's POV. What do you do if he says his wife put the stickers there? Do you make him buy another car or get him a ride?

Ideally "good order and discipline" in the unit can be separated from outside political opinion: probably as a commander you would do better to seize the opportunity to reinforce that ideal, than to give an order which contradicts military policy and law.

I think this is best handled by a good senior NCO, until a command policy is promulgated, who might point-out to the individual that this sort of jackassery is more in line with what Weenie and Opie do out in town. You know, those guys that always claim to see flying saucers?

Naw, on second thought, a waste of time: looking at all the stickers again, to include the national ensign upside down, I think this individual is Weenie. Have the base PMO cite him for a safety violation in regard to obstructing his rear window.

While legally ok, it remains in poor taste, and he should take it off.

@GianGentile - Sir, I had the pleasure of hearing you speak (and later speaking with you) a few years back at the APCSS course on Counter-Terrorism. In the past few months I've read much about your name being mentioned as one of the new leading U.S. military thinkers on counterinsurgency, and are glad you are finally getting some of the credit you most earnestly deserve. I'm also glad to know I'm in outstanding company as read Tom Rick's most excellent blog!

RD, you have never hada good idea, we are still waiting for one...perhaps you can tie this into a rant about the AVF

All.

This reminds me of a time a few years ago when I was driving around Quantico, VA and there was a Volvo Wagon in front of me with all the standard Rah Rah Marine Corps bumper stickers, "When it absolutely has to be destroyed..." and so forth. In the middle of those was one sticker "Cats Against George Bush." Yeah, I laughed.

All this cute crap to figure out how to nail the guy for ... exercising his (or her) options under the First Amendment. It tells me that you just don't get it: i t i s h i s RIGHT t o d o t h i s !! It's protected under the Constitution that you swore an oath to uphold and defend. You do not have the authority to issue an unlawful order abridging that right.

I know, I know - the First Amendment was introduced by Communists and is kept in place by the Taliban. But it's still in place and it's your place to defend, not to figure out how to evade it ... and abuse your authority and be an asshole in the process.

Yet another reason to quit hiring mercenaries and put citizens in uniform. At least they know what they'd be fighting for.

Sir, part of why I find your comments -- well, bizarre -- is that you are turning a strong hand into a weak one.

You're ending with a weak hand because:

The soldier is legally fine. He gets to be a citizen with all the rights thereof when he takes off his uniform off duty (the commenter seeing no First Amendment problem is wacky, especially because so many retirees and families drive around post). The stickers are extreme but unfortunately that's also sort have become mainstream dialogue and you see that exact speech in some very public fora so you, not he, would end up looking like a zealot (and for an _officer_ -- wow, that's bad).

But the thing is, you _started_ with a strong hand. We're all clear that the officer better not say crap like this in uniform, or on duty -- then his ass is yours. Well, guess what -- this boob is for sure going to speak his mind when he shouldn't. Or if you're right and just the truck itself causes that much dissension and anger among his fellows, then for sure he'll get challenged and say some dumb-ass thing about impeaching the President -- on duty, out loud. I'd tell my NCO to keep an ear to the ground for when that happens, and when it happens -- the kid's ass is mine, and I can keep my unit disciplined. Hell, after the humiliation he can even keep his stickers on his POV. It'll reinforce that point about private views/views on duty, and I'll have a nice example walking around for my men. Excelsior!

...is stated in the thread above. Cannot see this guy is violating it.

Your sailor in the wardroom? Easy: UCMJ ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES

Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The military applies the rules and regulations given them by Congress executing its Article I charge "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

I understand the balancing act faced by a leader in this situation, but I REALLY don't see racial undertones. Seriously, 2 of the stickers disparage Democrats in general. One directly references Pres. Obama and advocates for his impeachment. I find that to be a ludicrous position, but how on earth does it have racial undertones? Sorry to keep looking backwards, but I recall seeing plenty of "Impeach Bush" stickers back in the day. Again, a ludicrous position, but similarly devoid of racial undertones.

I don't know, that lower left hand sticker sure looks like it might have a NRA logo on it? Besides, generally Marines would have all decals nice and level with straight gig lines, as taught by their DI. : )

I'm not aware that Navy or USMC applies the DOD Directive on bumper stickers etc. any differently from Army.

As to hating the US Army, no, I think it should be grand. Wish its members and leaders did the same ... or at least thought enough of it to believe it should be capable of winning the nation's longest war.

I assure you, this vehicle exists...stickers and all. This truck is consistently parked in the Medical Clinic parking lot across the street from my BN HQ. The building in the upper right of the pic is actually my BDE HQ.

I meant the building in the upper left is my BDE HQ. Evidently you can't spell "lost" without "CPT" either.

Clearly readable as such too. I have often remarked at the similarity of those two bumper stickers though (USMC vs NRA). I don't think it is coincidence.

Gents,

I just took a closer look at the eagle sticker...it's the NRA logo. If you zoom in, you find out that this person is an "endowment member" of the NRA, whatever that means. Hope that clears everything up.

V/R,
SOAP

Well, either Admiral’s on a nationwide Army base tour promoting his particular interpretation of US foreign policy, or somebody’s leg’s being pulled.

Twice.

At least. ;)

http://thechive.com/2010/06/28/royal-air-force-tornado-prank-2-photos/air-prank/

A couple of differences: first, although retired, he's a civilian employee. Second, this was dealt with as a base policy violation and not a UCMJ one. Third and most importantly, the policy was selectively enforced.

My guess is that if the DOD directive didn't exist, the military would probably be able to ban political bumper stickers if they could reasonably show it was for good order & discipline or another military necessity. While it's well established that your Constitutional rights do not end when you put on the uniform, they are circumscribed in various ways. Generally, the courts have given wide, but by no means absolute, deference to the military in such matters. But since there is a DOD policy, that's all academic.