Hackett Deserves Court Martial

UCMJ ^ | 8/6/05

[pabianice]

Gov. Taft and State GOP Woes, Not Iraq, Made Ohio a Tight Race

by John Gizzi

Human Events Online

To believe the national media, the election for the open U.S. House seat in Ohio's 2nd District on Tuesday was nearly won by a Democrat because of mounting opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq. Republican Jean Schmidt, former state legislator, barely clung to the most Republican congressional district in the Buckeye State by a margin of 4,000 votes, or 52% to 48%, over Democrat and Marine reserve officer Paul Hackett. In a race that drew national attention because of Hackett's opposition to the Bush policies in Iraq (and reference to the President as an "S.O.B."), the Democratic nominee handily carried four counties that only last year had gone for Bush (Pike, Scioto, Adams, and Brown)...

===================================================

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Article 888.88: Contempt Toward Officials

"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."

[StonyBurk]

Wasn't Hacket one of the spooks Hanoi John Freakin Kerry
took to Cambodia Christmas of 68?Seem to recall Rush suggesting he never campaigned as a Democrat-but just like
John Freakin' Kerry paraded as a true War heroe.The reg cited suggests he ought be turned out. But the Navy refused to investigate credible questions about Kerry-so I doubt the USMC would do more than wink at the boy unless
Mr.Bush gets out of his flight suit and calls for action.
I reckon Bush will hide this under the dead hackberrys.

[JNL]

I agree with you totally.

[WOSG]

Hackett called the President "a son of a b---h" in a public speech and referred to him as "the most dangerous man on earth."

----

Wow, I got a lot of flak for my comments ... but you actually responded substantively. If he said that and is still active duty, yes, that fits under 'contemptuous' dsirespect.

[WalterSkinner]

..ah yes, the spirit of George B. McClellan lives...

[A.A. Cunningham]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/politics/main713695.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Paul+Hackett+Bush+son+of+a+b****&btnG=Google+Search

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

I'm a commissioned Reserve Officer (05/USNR). The man is not liable for UCMJ unless he's on Active Duty, including reserve drill duty. That includes political speech.

However, if he was convicted of a crime in his civilian life, or did something that could be construed as "prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces", he could be involuntarily activated, and brought up on Article 134 charges. He could also simply be asked to resign his commission, in view of conflicts between his civilian activities (e.g. working in a brothel, being a Democrat Congressional candidate, i.e. pretty much the same thing) and his military commission.

No way would anyone bring someone up on UCMJ charges for political speech or activity. When Beck used to be the law of the land, there was some question how far a guy could go in being a political creature while an employee of the government, but Beck is non-operative now.

What this man has said is both dispicable and inappropriate. It'd put him on the bottom of the stack during promotion boards, but it won't get him prosecuted.

SFS

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

One more thing: If the guy appears in Uniform, he'd better be doing fund raising for charity, and not making political noise. Even if he's not on active duty, he IS accountable for what he does in Uniform.

SFS

[anton]

Look at this cheesey ambulance chasers crappy case load. "Oh my neck hurts, gimme your money!"

http://www.courtclerk.org/aps/ttl/lns/smcpb064.asp?f40638

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

re: they agree to obey the rules and regulations inherent in such service...

==================================

Alas, true, for regular Army/Navy/USMC/USAF, but less so for us reserve pukes. When a guy goes off active duty, he's a civilian, period. As I said in a previous post, there are things that person could do as a civilian that would result in dismissal (i.e. Commissioned Officer) from service, but it'd have to be more along moral grounds, not political stuff.

You are incorrect.

FReegards...SFS (CDR/05/USNR)

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

I too am a Vet and was in the Reserves; his violation of his oath by "... uses contemptuous words ... and still retaining his Commission in the Marine Reserve puts him directly into conflict with the UCMJ.

======================================================

I won't dispute that "contemptuous" words could be construed as an Article 134 offense, but trust me, it would never be prosecuted as such. If the guy makes a complete ass of himself nationally, he'll simply be brushed aside, i.e. no billets of increased opportunity leadership, and retired at rank (or mustered out before retirement if he's not at least an 04).

If for no other reason, the military services will ignore him for fear of the very investigation being considered a politically-motivated witch hunt. Bush would be the first one to kill it, if Rummy didn't get their first. The U.S. Military armed services are a-political, and the leaders (not this guy!) know it's their Constitutional charge to keep it that way. The other way leads to 3rd-world-country ruin.

"Shoulda, woulda, coulda" is trumpted by "real life".

SFS

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

re: "Al Asad, Iraq..."

FReegards, and I should add, "good hunting". Take care of yourself and your men. You're all hero's to us back home; believe it!

SFS

[JRios1968]

And a disgrace to the United States of America.

Trust me, once his words or actions disgrace the Armed Forces, he has disgraced this great Nation.

[JRios1968]

Guess we ought to modify the First Amendment to eliminate the right of free speech for former military officers. Right?

You see, that's where you fail to read the entire story behind this matter. Hackett is NOT a "former" military officer, he's a CURRENT military officer.

[JRios1968]

As a commissioned officer in the U.S. military, can you bring charges against Hackett?

Come to think of it, I believe the answer is Yes. I have proof of his words of contempt towards the President, and I am sure witnesses wouldn't be hard to find.

[kms61]

I'll take your word that Rush actually said that. If he did, he's on shaky ground. Having never been in uniform himself, he has no standing to call anyone a "staff puke." Criticize Hackett on the issues, fine There's plenty to criticize. But he doesn't need to be casting aspersions on somebody else's military service.

[MarkL]

Guess we ought to modify the First Amendment to eliminate the right of free speech for former military officers. Right?

I believe that he's still a member of the Reserves, and therefore covered by the UCMJ. And don't forget that he was running as a soldier who had served, and made the disparaging remarks about his CinC.

Mark

[Caesar Soze]

And don't forget that he was running as a soldier who had served, and made the disparaging remarks about his CinC.

Then he really shamed the Marine Corps.

[Gunrunner2]

>>I think it is a good thing for veterans to run for office. <<

I do too. . .however, he was a serving Marine Reserve officer and that makes him subject to the UCMJ.

Recall, if you will, Gen Campbell being keelhauled for this very offense when he stated the obvious truth about Clinton (womanizer, adulterous, pot-smoker. . .etc.).

[Gunrunner2]

Absolutely.

Well said.

[David]

"The officer in question here is not a former officer. He is a commissioned officer in the Reserves. Reserve members are subject to the UCMJ until retirement or resignation of commission. So, his comments are subject to the UCMJ." That's just a garbage legalistic rationalization with respect to which you are also wrong on the law as Christopher Lincoln and AndyJackson point out in #24 and #34 respectively.

The whole argument emphasizes what is wrong with the current effort--the government is engaged in making war on the constitutional rights of american citizens instead of constitutional action to make war on a defined enemy. Criticism of Bush and the Administration is justified and warranted.

As to all of you yes men for George II, the end result of this is going to be to elect Mrs. Clinton president. Schmidt was a lousy liberal candidate who had nothing to say except "yes for George II"; and the current group of Republican candidates are going to be in the same posture when it comes to the elections in 2006 and 2008.

What is needed is for Congress to declare war on the Mahammaden enemy; close the borders; kick illegals out; and locate legals who are engaged in Treason within our borders and treat them appropriately.

To the extent foreign military action is necessary to defend America, it needs to be addressed directly at the enemy and it must represent an effective action with a defined objective that will eliminate the threat.

The current policies are destructive of our liberty and the Constitution; destined to failure; and jeopardize the long term survival of our Country.