Naval Intelligence Warns: ‘Stop Criticizing Biden’

(Patriot Insider) – A brand new reminder has been issued to both active duty and retired members of the Office of Naval Intelligence last week that says they are barred by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other Department of Defense regulations from being able to criticize either President Joe Biden or other folks in his Cabinet and the Pentagon.

So apparently, the First Amendment no longer applies if you work for the Office of Naval Intelligence. That doesn’t seem to sit well with me.

According to a report straight from BizPacReview, the memo concerning this particular reminder was sent out through email and was originally reported on by the good people over at the Daily Wire. The message was sent out by the ONI’s chief of staff the day after deadly suicide bombing attacks took place outside the international airport located in Kabul.

The bombings killed 11 Marines, two U.S. soldiers, a Navy corpsman, and 169 Afghan civilians.

Along with Biden, members were also instructed that they were not to publicly criticize or be contemptuous of Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, or other members of Congress.

“Given the heightened political and social atmosphere surrounding Afghanistan, it is important to remind our uniformed personnel (active duty and reservists on temporary active duty) and military retirees of their responsibilities and obligations under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Department of Defense Directive 1344.10,” the email said, as quoted by The Daily Wire.

“Given the heightened political and social atmosphere surrounding Afghanistan, it is important to remind our uniformed personnel (active duty and reservists on temporary active duty) and military retirees of their responsibilities and obligations under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Department of Defense Directive 1344.10,” the email read.

“While it is vital to protect the constitutional right of freedom of expression for these groups, consistent with mission accomplishment, national security, and good order and discipline, it’s important to remember certain limitations,” the email went on to explain. “Namely, uniformed personnel and military retirees are prohibited from disrespecting senior government leadership (e.g. the President, Vice President, Congress, Secretary of Defense, Service Secretaries, etc.).”

“The outlet reported that under the same UCMJ and DoD regulations, current and retired ONI staffers cannot take part in partisan political activities including the distribution of partisan literature and materials,” the report said.

The report from the Daily Wire then cited a current ONI staffer who stated that the same policies were not nearly as strict when President Donald Trump was in office. The source then went on to recall that “retired officers condemning the former president.”

Of course not. Because the left wanted and needed all of these folks to turn against Trump in order to help aid them in stealing the presidential election last year. They had to ensure that as many people as possible bought into the “orange man bad” narrative the mainstream media had been pumping up forever.

“Even for civilians, you are reminded of the danger that your public comments will/could be attributed to ONI or the Department of Defense,” the memo continued. “While you are entitled to your opinion and to share your opinion amongst those you know and trust, being too vocal in criticism of, say, the President or members of the military and civilian leadership may reflect poorly on ONI.

“It is important to share your opinions, if you choose to do so, in a professional manner that does not call into question your employment, the Department of Defense, or the federal government as a whole,” the email went on to add.

The memo then addressed that attack that happened in Kabul, Afghanistan last week.

“After Kabul fell to the Taliban last week, the scenes of chaos and desperation have been hard for all Americans to watch, especially for those of us in the national security establishment, as well as those who served selflessly in Afghanistan over the last 20 years,” the ONI Chief of Staff stated. “Watching the Taliban sweep back into power after two decades of investment can be a bitter pill to swallow.”

This memo just so happens to come out right after a video was posted by Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, a 17-year decorated combat veteran who took senior Pentagon leaders to the woodshed over the attack that happened in Kabul, openly challenging them to take responsibility for the incident.

Not long after the video hit the Internet, Scheller was essentially fired from his position as a battalion commander.

It’s time for Joe Biden and the rest of his administration to take responsibility for what happened and resign. If they refuse, they should be impeached. Period. These lost lives could have been avoided had the troop pullout been done differently.

Copyright 2021. PatriotInsider.org

16 COMMENTS

    • You are so right. People and corporations forget free speech guarantees. I get tired of social media saying” your comment is waiting moderation”. I challenge that saying everytime it appears.

  1. Military personnel took and oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Right now it is to defend the US from Domestic enemies of which is happening and not to care anything about party or status in the country.

  2. The Office of Naval Intelligence says shut up, or we will destroy you for telling the truth. Nothing tyrannical about that, now is there?

    We are no longer having verbal disagreements with other people’s ideas. We are now not allowed to disagree with the government and criticize it when wrong.

    We are moving into the realm of good versus evil.

    Ephesians 6:12 Our fight is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, but against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

    • Yeah somebody thinks that navy intelligence has over stepped their boundaries. Seems they are part of the woke military which doesn’t fight wars but gives in to our enemies and demented presidents.

  3. Why they remove, Commander Schiller from his position, when the one they to remove are the others who don’t want to answer his question. And that included the President and all in the state department. My husband was 20 years in the military and I never has seen something like this. I am proud that I was part , when he was in the military. You know Court Martial, sound better.

  4. I am a combat Veteran and I am ashamed of the actions that the Democrat’s have shown toward the sacrificed that our active members of the military and veterans have given up keeping this country free!

    It has been focused as being a complete disgrace to the history and legacy of our great country!

    For those stupid citizens that think we are the aggressors in the world seem to forget all the lives that died protecting this great Republic over the last 250 years!

    They seem to care more about their own lives than care about how many lives have lost protecting our way of life.

    We have become a nation of “ME, ME, ME” instead of consideration for the greater good!

    There are businesses that do not give discounts to the military, past and present, whom have sworn to protect the nation for all those who wish to harm this country, both foreign and domestic!

    Wake up Americans and start realize that this country is and always has been for the well being of all citizens!

    We NEED to enact Term Limits for ALL so called patriots whom supposedly representing our nation. These so called persons are only representatives for their own interests, not the will of its citizens!

    Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion and distrust in our representatives!!!!

    I am not some radical, looking to speak ill of our country but to show how our country has become a haven for those who want to destroy this great nation!

    I am a Vietnam Veteran, a USMC Veteran, with the rank of GySgt, and I am willing to put my live on the line again to protect this great nation. Are you?

  5. Article 88 does say any commissioned officer can face a Court Martial for speaking contemptuously against the President, Vice President, Congress, Secretary of Defense, the secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislator of any state or commonwealth. Our military will enforce this Military protocol. The problem is our founders, the framers of the Constitution, never envisioned our citizens electing so inept a person as is Biden for the Presidency. Secondly, Homeland Security did not exist when the founders wrote the Constitution. It is obvious liberals infiltrated so deeply into our government they were able to rewrite this article to better suit their liberal agenda.

    As a Veteran, I understand reasons used to enforce this article. Our military must be “one” as a unit because dissention can kill one of or the entire unit. The mission must have a military focus and not a political one, in order to succeed. This plain, simple approach to military efficiency can also be the downfall of any or all missions, if following a callous, foolish, inept Commander-in-Chief!

    Biden is such a Commander-in-Chief, which places our military command in jeopardy of Court Martial if they challenge a Commander-in-Chief order that will certainly lead to death of service members, if carried out as ordered. What do they do? Military leaders have a dual role: they have a military obligation to follow orders and they have a moral obligation to protect each person under their command. If a leader follows an obviously callous, dangerous order to send troops on a mission that will certainly result in a large number of casualties, that leader is protected my military law if the mission fails and we lose most of the troops. The dilemma is simple: how does a good officer sleep after following a faulty order that resulted in the loss of a huge number of military personnel?
    The morality of such a decision is deadly to good people.

    Article 88 is wrong in so many ways and on so many levels, Congress needs to address it and give military commanders in the field more control on what missions they undertake and how they plan to complete these missions. U. S. Army General Carter Ham, Commander of U.S. Ground forces in North Africa, was the last service member to challenge a President on military protocol; exposing the fallacies of Article 88. General Carter Ham, Military Ground Forces Commander if North Africa, notified President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the possibility of insurgent action against the U. S. Consulate in Benghazi. President Obama, with full support from Secretary Clinton, dismissed the request as unsubstantial. General Ham, re-enforced with solid intelligence data of a pending outbreak in Libya, contacted Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and asked the Rear Admiral to compare Naval intelligence with Army intelligence. Read Admiral Gaouette confirmed General Ham’s suspicions and both Commanders contacted D.C. with the news. General Ham reported he had a strike troop prepared to go to Benghazi as reinforcements to the two ex-navy seals assigned to protect Ambassador Stevens at the U. S. Consulate in Benghazi. Obama, again with full support from Secretary Clinton, refused the request and told General Ham to “Stand Down.” When news reached D.C. that General Ham had not disbanded his “Strike Force” for Benghazi. President Obama sent MPS to relieve General Ham of his command.

    Less than a week later, Muslim terrorist overpowered the two ex-navy seals, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, guarding Ambassador Stevens and his aide Sean Smith, at the U. S. Consulate in Benghazi, dragging them, bruised and tortured, through the streets of Benghazi, before murdering them.

    This is a prime example of a President ordering the deaths of United States service personnel and state department employees because of the President’s incompetency and ineptitude!

    The two issues I find incorrect are giving Commander-in-Chief Status to a President who has no military experience and not allowing military Field Commanders to discern which mission is logical and which mission is a suicide mission. I believe Field Commanders need to have the final decision in such crucial actions as were needed in Benghazi. President Obama’s treatment of crucial military data, from both army and navy intelligence services and his removal of General Ham are prime examples of why I believe Article 88 is faulty.

    P. S. If Obama had relied on our military to make a military decision in Benghazi, would Ambassador Stevens, aide Sean Smith, ex-navy seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty have died on September 11, 2012? I think not!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here