...Mysterious Pentagon insider
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?
Wild Bill almost got Hitler .... too bad he escaped thru the Swiss Alps. I'm glad I didn't allow you to send in the Rangers. Don't worry about that Soviet Uranium enrichment facility at the Free University in Berlin ...after we showed them how to build an A-Bomb they still can't possibly have one before 1955 .... cause Wild Bill said so .... Bill also wants to "Centralize Intelligence" and create his own agency .... that way he can do his job better. That means all of your intel assets now work for him and not you. I promise you will still get the processed intel ... maybe .... You seem to be having problems with the French ....why ....we did liberate 50+ million French they must love us and no you can't have more men. Those French Communists are starting to piss me off.
Now remember our agreement you can write your book as long as you say everything between us worked out just fine, but I don't like that word Crusade in the title.
BTW, I forgot to pay those mercenaries .... I went to a play last night .... and they said something about "letting slip the dogs of war" Do you know what they are talking about ....
That is actually pretty funny. You say your "sources" actually work at the Pentagon and have "often been the anonymous ones usually reported in the MSM." Sounds like your sources are a bunch of cowards to me. They also don't appear to be especially bright. Calling Rumsfeld "Dumsfeld" is not exactly an indicator of high personal intelligence. Regardless, since your "facts" are based entirely on mysterious Pentagon insiders widely quoted by our anti-American media, color me unimpressed.
Here are my facts...
1. Unless you believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a liar, he is on record today refuting everything you claim. (I'd quote him but the official transcript is not out yet)
2. Unless you believe the former (now retired) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Myers, is a liar, he is on record as of Sunday refuting what you claim.
3. Unless you believe Gen Franks (retired) is a liar, he is on record several times refuting what you claim.
4. Unless you believe Gen Delong (retired) is a liar, he is on record refuting everything you say.
5. You must believe I am a liar, because I currently work in a Joint HQ's with constant interaction with folks in the Pentagon, and I refute everything you say.
So to counter that, you offer mysterious Pentagon insiders who won't reveal their names, but are often quoted in the media. Do you believe all the folks (active and retired) who are on record saying you are wrong are liars, or do you have something better to offer than your mystery friends?
...Mysterious Pentagon insider
Twenty eight years as a Foreign Service Officer and eight years as a naval officer. You are the one who made the accusation that, "Leaks that do damage come from the State Dept, but many are blamed on the Pentagon."
You are the one who needs to back up that statement with some specifics.
I have 14 years USG service on you. So stop dancing around the subject and cite me some examples of State Department leaks that were blamed on the Pentagon.
kabar, I am sure that not everyone leaks from the State depratment, but you must admit we have had some doozies lately in the press sourced to the State Department. Clinton salted that group as well.
The IMPORTANT thing is meandog claiming that he is getting information from the Pentagon. Either he is lying (a possibility) or he is telling the truth. If he is telling the truth, and he is a reporter (which I happen to believe since he has been a bellligerent McCain supporter since 2000 and he uses DNC talking points and phrases), THEN there are people in the Pentagon pushing a line to the press. Some leaks are authorized, I am sure, but some of the things I have seen in the press came from either disloyal people in the Pentagon or the fevered and wishful imaginations of the reporters' brains.
Stay on point, gentlemen! We are ALLIES against a common enemy!
BS
Please read my post 210.
I am talking about the crap that undermines the Administration. Abu Ghraib, for example.
.
That's my point. Someone in the Pentagon leaked to CBS. Meandog may know who. I notice since I have called him on this he has been absent. Interesting, isn't it?
I detect some bitterness there, maybe you didnt get promoted along the way somewhere, stuck at E3?
I'll never tell, tee-hee!
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.