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?
I suppose the same could be said about you and everyone else on this board. Who died and left you the suspender of Constitutional rights?
Can you tell me what is wrong with the statement "You go to war with the Army you have." Its the truth. What other Army are you going to go to war with? The one you WISH you had? What nonesense. Rumsfeld is an innovator and has ruffled feathers as any trailblazer would. These upstarts are just pissed because he rained on their parade or canceled their pet projects.
Some people have a hard time with reality. Apparently you are one of them.
The generals need to be reminded of the words of Clemenceau, "War is a series of calamaties that result in victory." And we are getting victory in Iraq, regardless of what the MSM says.
Nobody. As a citizen it is my duty to uphold the constitution. Sedition in war time used to be a serious offense. Nowadays, it is treated as "free speech". That is why we can't prosecute a war without encouraging the enemy. Ask the VC what they think about "free speech".
Rumsfeld has the only friend that matters, President Bush.
Isn't that the truth!!!!!!!!1
RATher/Mapes/DNC... Wilson/Plame/DNC... Zinni/Batiste/DNC...
The first example is the proper and correct way to act. That General Baptiste went along with everything, going out of his way to thickly slather praise upon Rumsfeld (while Rumsfeld could promote him) , and now, 18 months later claims to have held secret opposition to the plan is ridiculous. Typical careerist garbage.
That comment was spot on; don't forget the question that led up to it was a set up.
Rumsfeld has my support, and if anything I think a few more Generals need to retire.
I can't believe it took until your post to read some common sense. Sometimes it just baffles me that people can still be so naive as to believe anything they read in the media. Especially when it concerns attacks against Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.
Excuse me, but does everybody realize this work of fiction was suggested by Richard Holbroke in the Washington Post?!?! This is so much baloney it isn't even worth reading, nevermind discussing.
Sorry, but you simply have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None.
What Would Patton Do?
I don't want Rumsfeld making friends at the Pentagon.
McNamara isn't worthy to shine Rumsfeld's shoes.
***Ask the VC what they think about "free speech".***
Ask any tin-pot dictator the same. If you like stomping out dissent so much I'm sure there are a wide variety of third world dictatorships that would welcome you with open arms.
I'm amazed at the number of posters who don't understand the difference between "You sound stupid," and "Shut up or I'll arrest you."
I suspect they only shut up when forced, which is not a good commentary on them at all.
Mutiny is not valid, however Treason does not require them to be in uniform.
The supposition is that some form of conspiracy was committed prior to retirement. Assuming that the statute of limitations hasn't expired one may be recalled to active duty to answer charges for crimes committed while on active duty. Uncommon, but possible. Certainly in this political environment any attempt to recall one of those generals would be viewed as a political attack. Will not happen or even be considered.
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.