Replies

I appreciate the support, counselor.

I separate my support for Ltc Lakin from my support for troops in the field during wartime. His missing movement could have caused serious disruption and potentially cost lives.

I didn’t want Lakin to spend even a day in jail. At the same time, I thought his decision to miss movement was ill-advised.

He should have made his only crime speaking against the legitimate authority of the commander in chief to see if it would be prosecuted.

“1.(law prevents) Commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the President and other senior civilian government officials.” 10 US Code, para 801-904”

“A significant and much publicized military first amendment case of recent times was United States v. Howe.14 Howe, a second lieutenant stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, was convicted of using contemptuous words against the President and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, in violation of articles 88 and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specifically, he had participated in a demonstration in downtown El Paso and was observed by military police while carrying a sign reading: “Let’s have more than a choice between petty ignorant fascists in 1968,” and, on the reverse side, “End Johnson’s fascist aggression in Vietnam.” “

(different case...US v Priest) “In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the Court of Military Appeals to explain the unique need of the military. The latter court stated in United States v. Priest:

In the armed forces some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.19”

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/may-jun/moran.html

>> Be prepared to take some heat, soldier.

>> FWIW, I’ve got your back.

Are you prepared to support his family while he is in prison, or offer him a job (he will likely not be able to start private practice as a doctor, since in most states a dishonorable discharge is equivalent to a felony)?

If none of the above, talk on a message board is cheap.

A bunch of people will wax sympathetic on blogs and that will be all.