[IP] U.S. troops speaking out against Bush, but can they?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glenn Tenney <gt_IP060107@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: March 23, 2006 11:47:16 AM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: U.S. troops speaking out against Bush, but can they?
( for IP if you wish )
A friend currently serving in Iraq gave me permission to post
these comments of his:
Interesting series of letters in the Stars and Stripes lately, with
many service members of all ranks writing in to criticize Bush, and
several others writing back to say they weren't permitted to do that
under Article 88 of the UCMJ and Article 92 of the UCMJ. Finally a
JAG lawyer wrote in to say that criticism itself isn't illegal under
Article 88, as long as no contempt is expressed, and Article 92
doesn't apply because that is about failure to follow orders.
Now here is where it gets really interesting...At this point, a
Major writes in to point out that in fact, Article 88 has been
refined recently by DoD directive 1344.10, governing political
activity by military personnel. The directive specifically states
that a service member may not use contemptuous language against an
office holder, which is further defined as the President, Vice
President, Congress, Secretary of Defense, the secretary of a
military department, and so on down to the state level.
So what it amounts to is this: if a service member criticizes anyone
in office, they can be busted if their langauge is found to be
"contemptuous." I have yet to see this regulation applied, but the
means is there.
When was the DoD directive signed? August 2nd, 2004--under George
W. Bush.
See http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm
for the full text of that DoD directive
The "Stars and Stripes" letters can be found at
http://www.estripes.com/section.asp?section=125
( especially see those on 13, 16, and 20 March )
e.g. from the 20 March letters
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=35869
Contempt violates directive
The writers of the March 13 letters "Enlisted can speak their minds"
and "Don't believe major's hype" have failed to do their research
concerning Article 88 and its applicability toward enlisted members.
Had they done so, they would have learned about DOD Directive
1344.10, which governs the political activities by members of the
Armed Forces on active duty. Paragraph 4.1.3 Enclosure 3 specifies
permitted and prohibited activities for servicemembers. Further
examination of enclosure 3 (paragraph E3.3.11) states a member on
active duty may not "use contemptuous words against the
officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (reference (b)), or
participate in activities proscribed by references (c) and (d)."
Title 10, U.S.C. 888 specifies these officials as, "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."
Failure to obey this directive, signed Aug. 2, 2004, would be a
violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation. So in short the major is
correct and both writers are wrong.
Maj. Sean P. Wilson
Hohenfels, Germany
--
Glenn Tenney
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/