thedrifter
08-01-03, 06:06 AM
07-30-2003
Guest Column: Sticks and Stones
By Wade Sanders
Recently, in Iraq, a certain member of the Third Infantry apparently concerned about his job performance, called for the secretary of defense to resign. The response from the Pentagon was swift. A bright Navy Chief Petty Officer, designated duty spokeswoman, sternly stated that “ ... criticism of superior officers is a breach of military rules,” and Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said that “None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States.”
As a retired military officer, and former senior Navy leader, I was intrigued by these statements because I knew of no specific “military rule” that applied here. So, I went straight to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the bible of “things one cannot do while in the military,” looking for a passage that might apply. Article 88 looked promising; it had all the right people named in it, but there was one major flaw: it only applied to salty-mouthed officers. For those of you who do not have a dog-eared copy of the UCMJ around the house, let me refresh your memory. Article 88 eloquently states:
“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.”
Clearly, officers were muzzled, but what about enlisted folks? You remember them, they’re the ones who do the work. What rule did the miscreant in question breach? Well, it wasn’t Articles 89 and 91, because they forbid enlisted insubordination towards a commissioned or petty officer or non-commissioned officer, but neither the president or secretary of defense fall into that category. Of course, all of us who enlisted, or were dragged kicking and screaming during the salad days of the draft, into the armed forces took an oath. Maybe that applies.
Remember when we were lined up, sometimes in our skivvies, raised our right hands and spoke the penultimate words: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.”
Well, clearly we have to follow the president’s orders, but it doesn’t say we can’t say bad things about the occupant of the White House. And, what about the secretary of defense, he or she doesn’t even rate a mention? Maybe that’s because, after all, he is just a political appointee ... not even elected.
I may be grasping here, but perhaps the “Pentagon spokesperson” and the general were referring to that great “catch-all” Article, the Darth Vader of the UCMJ, the one that reaches even the most arcane corners of deviant behavior: Article 134, the dreaded “General Article,” that basically deals with anything anyone might do that might impact negatively on “good order and discipline,” or “bring discredit” upon the armed forces. Since this probably covers everything from body odor to nose picking in public, this must be the big enchilada, because I can find no military regulation which specifically prevents enlisted folks from saying bad things about any civilian, and the secretary of defense is definitely a civilian.
George W. Bush, Jr. and Secretary Rumsfeld are not the first civilian leaders to irritate certain elements of the military, and they will not be the last. It seems pretty clear that the President, as constitutional Commander in Chief, is probably safe from verbal contempt from both officers and enlisted. I am still not so sure about Secretary Rumsfeld. It would appear the sin of the Third Infantry bubba was one of judgment and manners. Perhaps a sound spanking is in order.
Wade Sanders is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, a decorated combat veteran and attorney practicing in San Diego. He can be reached at wade2000@cox.net.
[Have an opinion on this analysis? Sound off here.]
Reposted with permission of Military.com. © 2003 Wade R. Sanders. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=152&rnd=654.9394699635774
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
Guest Column: Sticks and Stones
By Wade Sanders
Recently, in Iraq, a certain member of the Third Infantry apparently concerned about his job performance, called for the secretary of defense to resign. The response from the Pentagon was swift. A bright Navy Chief Petty Officer, designated duty spokeswoman, sternly stated that “ ... criticism of superior officers is a breach of military rules,” and Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said that “None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States.”
As a retired military officer, and former senior Navy leader, I was intrigued by these statements because I knew of no specific “military rule” that applied here. So, I went straight to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the bible of “things one cannot do while in the military,” looking for a passage that might apply. Article 88 looked promising; it had all the right people named in it, but there was one major flaw: it only applied to salty-mouthed officers. For those of you who do not have a dog-eared copy of the UCMJ around the house, let me refresh your memory. Article 88 eloquently states:
“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.”
Clearly, officers were muzzled, but what about enlisted folks? You remember them, they’re the ones who do the work. What rule did the miscreant in question breach? Well, it wasn’t Articles 89 and 91, because they forbid enlisted insubordination towards a commissioned or petty officer or non-commissioned officer, but neither the president or secretary of defense fall into that category. Of course, all of us who enlisted, or were dragged kicking and screaming during the salad days of the draft, into the armed forces took an oath. Maybe that applies.
Remember when we were lined up, sometimes in our skivvies, raised our right hands and spoke the penultimate words: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.”
Well, clearly we have to follow the president’s orders, but it doesn’t say we can’t say bad things about the occupant of the White House. And, what about the secretary of defense, he or she doesn’t even rate a mention? Maybe that’s because, after all, he is just a political appointee ... not even elected.
I may be grasping here, but perhaps the “Pentagon spokesperson” and the general were referring to that great “catch-all” Article, the Darth Vader of the UCMJ, the one that reaches even the most arcane corners of deviant behavior: Article 134, the dreaded “General Article,” that basically deals with anything anyone might do that might impact negatively on “good order and discipline,” or “bring discredit” upon the armed forces. Since this probably covers everything from body odor to nose picking in public, this must be the big enchilada, because I can find no military regulation which specifically prevents enlisted folks from saying bad things about any civilian, and the secretary of defense is definitely a civilian.
George W. Bush, Jr. and Secretary Rumsfeld are not the first civilian leaders to irritate certain elements of the military, and they will not be the last. It seems pretty clear that the President, as constitutional Commander in Chief, is probably safe from verbal contempt from both officers and enlisted. I am still not so sure about Secretary Rumsfeld. It would appear the sin of the Third Infantry bubba was one of judgment and manners. Perhaps a sound spanking is in order.
Wade Sanders is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, a decorated combat veteran and attorney practicing in San Diego. He can be reached at wade2000@cox.net.
[Have an opinion on this analysis? Sound off here.]
Reposted with permission of Military.com. © 2003 Wade R. Sanders. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=152&rnd=654.9394699635774
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: