Posted on 06/08/2002 1:58:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON -- An Air Force colonel who accused President Bush of allowing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to happen has set off a lively debate in military cyberspace over the limited rights servicemen and women have to free speech.
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler was relieved of his duties as vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., for the letter, which was published May 26 in the Monterey County Herald.
Butler wrote that Bush knew the attacks would happen, but "did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism" in order to save his presidency.
"His daddy had Saddam, and he had Osama," Butler wrote.
"His presidency was going nowhere," his letter continued. "He wasn't elected by the American people, but put into the Oval Office by the conservative supreme court.
"The economy was sliding into the usual republican pit, and he needed something to hang his presidency on."
Air Force officials have declined to say much about the incident, except that it is under investigation. Butler, a 23-year veteran and navigator during the Gulf War, disconnected his telephone.
Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids the use of "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, members of Congress and other officials.
The prohibition applies only to commissioned officers. The maximum punishment is confinement for one year, dismissal from the service and the loss of all pay and benefits.
Military justice experts say curtailing free speech is essential to maintaining civilian control of the military and maintaining discipline within the ranks.
The California letter has triggered a lively and sometimes nasty debate on Internet military bulletin boards, where people can sound off anonymously. While a few people have applauded Butler for taking a public stand, others have accused him of treason.
Most upbraid him for unprofessionalism, poor leadership and violating his military oath.
Commissioned officers swear to uphold and protect the Constitution "against all enemies foreign and domestic" upon entering service. Enlisted personnel have to further swear to obey the officers appointed over them and the president, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
At the very least, military discipline demands respect for the office, some officers say. As in, "You salute the rank, not the person."
Butler's letter touched a raw nerve among those who are still smarting from several cases from the Clinton administration in which officers who criticized Clinton were reprimanded or forced to retire.
The issue of free speech within the military is constantly open to interpretation and debate.
"When you look at Article 88, it really does butt up against the First Amendment and the right of free speech," said Scott Silliman, executive director of Duke Law's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University in North Carolina, and a former Air Force judge advocate general.
Experts also said such cases are hard to prove from a legal standpoint. "One of the problems of Article 88 is that there is such little case law that the definitions of the terms are vague and ambiguous," said Victor Kelley, president of the National Military Justice Group in Birmingham, Ala., and a former Marine Corps judge advocate.
Butler's wife told the Monterey County Herald that her husband had planned to retire in a few weeks. Even though the country is at war and Bush is popular with the military, most experts predict that Butler will be allowed to retire quietly at a lesser rank.
The heart of the matter is really about professionalism and discipline, not free speech, said other experts who study the military.
"It's especially provoking to have held one's tongue with Clinton only to find that a fellow military officer drags the profession back into disrepute under Bush," said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science professor.
About 115 officers and soldiers have been convicted under earlier regulations prohibiting criticism of the president, most of them during the Civil War, World War I and World War II, according to a 1999 article in Army Lawyer magazine.
That Lt. Colonel is going to make the back page of his base's newspaper --- everyone's favorite page!
"It's especially provoking to have held one's tongue with Clinton only to find that a fellow military officer drags the profession back into disrepute under Bush," said Peter Feaver, a Duke University political science
After the Air Force bathed him, fed him, coddled him, and paid him , this colonel is upset with Bush because Bush does not diddle with an intern in the White House as did the colonel's former commander - in - chief....whom he obviously admired tremendously..
Ding, ding, ding. Yep. Betcha this creep will be doing "military" commentary on NPR in a few months.
Maybe John Pike will give him a job on his team.
Why does the media think John Pike is a "national security expert"?
Bump!
The maximum punishment is confinement for one year, dismissal from the service and the loss of all pay and benefits.
It would be fitting to see him get this punishment. Oh! the horrors of having to obey the rules or face the consequences!
YUP! Started some 9 years ago, as I see it!!!
If real military heros can be penalized for criticizing a womanizing, lying, perverted, traitorous bastard who never won an election for President by majority vote like Clinton, this Jerk should have the book thrown at him.
The real fact is that many "civil libertarians" like the ACLU are selective in their application of the Bill of Rights.
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.