U.S. troops speaking out against Bush, but can they?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Glenn Tenney <gt_IP060107 () think org>
Date: March 23, 2006 11:47:16 AM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
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 lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/