Posted on 04/18/2006 5:28:03 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Consider two hypothetical situations. In the first, a United States Army general officer in a theater of war decides by himself that he strongly disagrees with the orders of the secretary of defense. He resigns his commission, returns to private life and speaks out vigorously against both the policy and the secretary of defense.
In example two, the top 100 generals in the Army military chain of command secretly agree amongst themselves to retire and speak out -- each one day after the other.
In example one, above, unambiguously, the general has behaved lawfully. In example two, an arguable case could be made that something in the nature of a mutinous sedition has occurred in violation of Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice procedure. When does an expanded version of the simple honesty and legality of the first example cross over into grounds for a court martial?
More specifically, can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny? And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?
This may sound far-fetched, but in Sunday's Washington Post the very smart, very well-connected former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke published an article entitled "Behind the Military Revolt." In this article he predicts that there will be increasing numbers of retired generals speaking out against Sec. Rumsfeld. Then, shockingly, he writes the following words: "If more angry generals emerge -- and they will -- if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable . . . then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld."
Mr. Holbrooke is at the least very well-informed -- if he is not himself part of this military cabal intended to "consume ... Donald Rumsfeld." Mr. Holbrooke sets the historic tone of his article in his first sentence when he says this event is "the most serious public confrontation between the military and administration since . . . Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur."
He takes that model one step further later in his article when he compares the current campaign against Rumsfeld with the MacArthur event and with Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln and Gen. John Singlaub against Carter, writing: "But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt."
A "revolt" of several American generals against the secretary of defense (and by implication against the president)? Admittedly, if each general first retires and then speaks out, there would appear to be no violation of law.
But if active generals in a theater of war are planning such a series of events, they may be illegally conspiring together to do that which would be legal if done without agreement. And Ambassador Holbrooke's article is -- if it is not a fiction (which I doubt it is) -- strong evidence of such an agreement. Of course, a conspiracy is merely an agreement against public policy.
The upcoming, unprecedented generals' "revolt" described by Mr. Holbrooke, if it is not against the law, certainly comes dangerously close to violating three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
"Article 94 -- Mutiny and sedition (a) "Any person subject to this chapter who -- (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny; (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition; (3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition."
"Article 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."
"Article 134. General Article. Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
Certainly, generals and admirals are traditionally given more leeway to publicly assess war policies than is given to those in lower ranks. But with that broader, though limited, discretion comes the responsibility not to be seen to in any way contradict the absolute rule of civilians over the military in our constitutional republic.
The president has his authority granted to him by the people in the election of 2004. Where exactly do the generals in "revolt" think their authority comes from?
Gawd, you again? Consider yourself on my permanent "ignore list"!
"I think he is over-analyzing this whole thing. "
I have another theory. He is preemptively striking, reminding any active duty generals contemplating such a course, to be very very afraid.
HAHAHA! Are you afraid of me, a housewife in Indiana? WHO are those sources? Were you talking out of your hat or are they real? If they are real, WHO ARE THEY?
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/67123.htm
Read this before you contemplate, even slightly, replacing Rummy.
30 April 1945 Stimson to Ike:
How did Uncle Joe get to the Rhine so quickly? Your link up with the Red Army on the Rhine was pretty good? ....Right?... That "Thunder Run" by Audie Murphy and his Old Army "Rock Of the Marne" out of southern France into Paris was something else! How did they do that? Don't worry about the rioting .... we can't occupy France. We wouldn't want to upset them.... A couple of side notes .... I'm sending a CPA to be your boss in Paris ... we can't have the military control anything ..... and you need to start raising, arming and equipping a New French Army to defend against that HUGE Army next door. I lost that memo you send about "Heavy" water, jets and rockets....don't worry about sending it again.
They know that Rummy is going to closely examine the fitness of any general who got his first star under Clinton
McClellan may have built a great army. But McClellan didn't know how to use it. Are you familiar with the Battle of Antietam? Lee was a sitting duck. Mcclellan could have overrun the confederates and ended the war then. What did he do? Nothing. He pulled back. The confederacy lasted for three more years and costed the Union Army tens of thousands of more lives. This is probably the most costly mistake a US general has ever made and one of the worst blunders in military history.
He was overly cautious and overly meticulous. Waiting for all the right provisions and a moment that would never come. McClellan would be much better off pushing a pencil in Washington like many of these Generals running their mouths now (i.e. Zinni, Clark). It is men like Grant, Sherman, Jackson, Lee, MacArthur, Patton, Schwartzkoff, Franks and LeMay that win wars.
If you wait untill everything is perfect before engaging an enemy devoted to killing you, you will soon find yourself in a grave.
Ohh-h-h-h, a good reporter (which I am) NEVER reveals his sources...you'll just have to guess.
In addition, McClellan is responsible for the most costly blunder in US millitary history by not overrunning Lee's forces at Antietam. He withdrew waiting for a moment that would never come. The confederacy lasted three more years and costs 10s of thousands of more Union lives.
If he wasn't pounded on it would tell me he's not doing his job.
Keep talking.
Nimitz promised to name an aircraft carrier after me if I don't quit. I think I'll rename the War Department ... what to you think? I understand Wild Bill wants still more money .... guarding wine can get expensive. Have you caught Hitler yet? Now remember you can't cross the Rhine ... only Wild Bill can and only when I let him. You sure are taking a long time training the French .... what is all that talking I hear from what's his name Charles de-Gaulle? BTW, Did you pay your taxes yet? .... Wild Bill wants more money to get Hitler. I lost another memo from you about uranium in North Korea and somewhere in Germany .... don't worry ... be happy ....
A lot of resignations as part of a conspiracy IS. Iunder our constitutional system, military officers cannot overtly engage in plots. Since 1689, Mutiny Acts have been part and parcel of the Anglo-American tradition.
It is also worth noting that there was a clamor to fire his Secretrary of War, Edwin M. Stanton. When pressure was exerted to remove the unpopular secretary from office, Lincoln replied, "If you will find another secretary of war like him, I will gladly appoint him." Stanton stayed on until 1868 thru the Johnson administration.
McClellan was also a Democrat, which explained his caution. Lincoln won the war because by 1864, the officer corps was Republican and so were most of the volunteers.
BS
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.