Posted on 08/18/2006 8:08:23 PM PDT by chcknhawk
The Army definition of subversion reads, "Active attempts to encourage military or civilian employees to violate laws, disobey lawful orders or regulations, or disrupt military activities."
Army Regulation, derived from the United States Code, further states the following:
During time of war, subversion additionally includes: (l) making or conveying false reports or false statements with the intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; and (2) willfully obstructing or attempting to obstruct the recruitment or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the United States
Sounds to me like Army 1LT Ehren Watada is in some deep trouble. Or is he? So far, the Army has only charged the traitor with "conduct unbecoming an officer, missing troop movement, and contempt toward officials." These are weak charges. Where is the Army's backbone? This "officer" has clearly commited subversion and yet that isn't one of the charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at soldiersperspective.us ...
The NY Times would also be guilty under that statute.
In times of war, these acts are nothing less than a sorry display of cowardice, regardless of how the perps qualify their actions.
How do you bump these things?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.