"Uniform Code of Military Justice" and Gen. Pace

Is there a section that forbids comments, such as the ones made by Gen. Pace, toward Murtha?

Anyone have a link to that rule?
I have been looking.

I thought there was rule that military is not allowed to criticise elected officials.

134, the "general article" covers everything, literally.

880. ART. 80. ATTEMPTS
(a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed.
(c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.

888. ART. 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.

933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 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.

I thought so.
Court Martial sounds good to me.

art. 88 forbids contemptuous words towards specific people and bodies. Pace criticized a particular member of Congress, not Congress in general. that may be a loophole.

He did not criticize Murtha, he criticized the effect Murtha's words would have on morale. It is a very subtle point, but it means that he came right up to the line, but did not cross it.

I'm sure Pace's remarks were vetted a-priori.

Pace is, in essence, on the Monkey's personal staff. He is carrying water for the Monkey. As I said below, Murtha made an assertion, and as the Monkey's toady, he refuted it. He was, in essence, carrying out Monkey's orders when criticizing Murtha.

The role of the CJCS is very different from that of the rest of the members of the Armed Forces. See below for more details.

We would be praising Gen. Pace if he had spoken out against Bush, and defending his freedom of speech. So if we demand a courts-martial because we don't like what he said, then we lose the ability to cry about freedom of speech when when a military figure is critical of Bush.


Furthermore, according to the article in the media, he disagreed without showing personal contempt. That is a huge difference. Compare:

"I believe that his remarks will hurt the Army in these ways. (Followed by a list of faults.)"

"That #)^($# asshat wants to castrate the Army."

I hope you can see the difference. The first is legal, the second isn't.

He is the ONLY guy in uniform who does. All others fall under the sleazy civilian control of Donald Rumsfeld, you see. There is NO LAYER between Monkey and Pace--Petie Boy is his PERSONAL advisor as CJCS.

When Pace speaks, it is because someone in the WH has put words in his mouth. The relationship is that tight.

And any military officer who speaks out AGAINST the President needs to first resign their commission--or risk doing hard jail time, losing a load of lineal numbers, and enduring a hefty fine, to say nothing of the disgrace and the loss of job, position, and tossing their family into the streets, in essence. You just cannot let breakdowns in good order and discipline stand, even when the CinC is an asshole. It's a "put up or shut up" situation for folks in uniform. Once you are free from your obligation, you can shout from the rooftops, but so long as you serve in uniform, you have to play by the rules.

If you are careful in the way you phrase what you say, you can speak your mind. However, you are correct that the military has a strong tradition of not speaking publicly on political matters, and that is a good thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010502132.html



JCS is NOT a command-and-control job, FWIW. It is an advisory role to the Dunce, and encompasses big picture issues, like the general state of the Services, the direction they are headed, the way they are structured, that kind of thing. That 'advice' includes the political nature of the interaction. The Joint Chiefs' chairman, Pace, sits on the National Security Council as the military brains, to explain "stuff" to the civilians around the table:



As the top dog (his lineal number is ZERO--meaning he is the highest ranking officer in the Services) there isn't anyone, save the Prez, who can discipline him. But given his advisory role, there's nothing really untoward in his comments, save the irritating fact that Murtha is right and he is wrong. A member of Congress made an assertion, and he, as a Dunce advisor, attempted to refute it. More on the curious (and rather UNHEALTHILY CONCENTRATED) role of the CJCS: