Joint Chiefs

An open letter to Martin Lewis of The Huffington Post:

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I’ve read your follow-up article to the open letter you wrote to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace. You’re now referring to that open letter as “tongue and cheek” and “satire,” with comparisons to Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver.” Not only were you embarrassingly wrong in your interpretation of the UCMJ, your failure to recant or stand by your assertions is cowardly. Your new assertion that the letter is satirical is contradicted by your responses to numerous commenters. In fact, here are seven of your defense responses:

===========MARTIN RESPONDS==========

“Of course this does not in any way lessen General Pace’s authority to act. That particular phrase was not the cornerstone of my case. Merely an adjunct. The combination of Articles 7, 133 and 134 provide the authority for General Pace to save his nation.”

“I ask General Pace to do two things. One is to relieve the President of his command as Commander-In-Chief. The other is to place the President under military arrest. It is arguable as to the conflict between the Constitution and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. One of the important legal ramifications of My Lai was the obligation to relieve a senior officer of his/her command in exceptional circumstances. If General Pace was performing a military imperative in a peaceful, non-threatening manner and simply informed Mr. Bush that he was being relieved of his military command, there would be no justification for the Secret Service to act as you suggest. Whatever the ultimate consequence, the impact of such a courageous and noble act on behalf of his nation, would be significant.”

“There is a vast difference between arresting someone and the outcome of a court martial. I have not advocated that General Pace “court martial” Bush. Nor could he. I have suggested that he relieve him of his command - which would automatically trigger a court martial. At which Bush’s status would be decided. So your analogy is moot.”

“I am most certainly not proposing sedition. I am saying that General Pace has an authority - be it military, moral or notional - to use his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to announce that he is relieving the President of his role as Commander-In-Chief. It may not carry weight over the President’s power. But the symobilsm [sic] of such an act in defense of America’s beleagured and abused armed forces could resonate loudly.”

“Would it have been mutiny or sedition to refuse the orders of Lieutenant Calley at My Lai? Only a court martial could decide that. Anyway - I don’t wish General Pace to overthow [sic] the civil authority of Mr. Bush or commit any illegal act. A statement - even notional - that for the protection of the Armed Forces who he is sworn to protect - that he is relieving Mr. Bush of his command - would send a sgnal [sic] that he cares about his country above all else. Sometimes it takes one person to be noble…”

“I do NOT suggest or advocate any such action. On the contrary - I expressly say that the General must NOT undertake any mutinous or seditious act. Publicly expressing that he is relieving Mr. Bush of his command would be a noble gesture - not an actual seizure of power. An avowal of his duty to protect the brave armed forces from abuse.”

“Like at least 70% of people in the USA, I long for the return of decent, constitutionally respectful government in the US. But I utterly reject any calls for that being achieved with force or illegal actions. General Pace will do what his conscience dictates. Or not. But he knows what a Gentleman is. And he knows what Gentlemanly Conduct is…”

Furthermore, it wasn’t until one of your readers suggested your work was satire that you jumped on the bandwagon…

thgrant (See profile | I’m a fan of thgrant)
Lewis’ argument is full of nuance, so it is difficult to understand. He wants Pace or Petreus [sic] to act on their conscience, yet not do anything illegal. What a rational for seizing power, and typical of so many leftist attitudes. Arrest all who disagree with us. Stop taking away our civil rights. (I hope the irony is apparent to most readers.)

==========MARTIN RESPONDS=========

I wouldn’t count on it. Most of the right-wing-nuts who have read this column seem to be oblivious to irony and satire…

Your responses from this point on attribute your piece to satire. You’re not fooling anyone, Mr. Lewis. I don’t have a problem with anyone who expresses an opinion, as long as it’s an educated one. I also enjoy the opportunity to debate an issue. If someone should sway me with their argument, I would accept their position and concede that I was wrong. You could’ve done this, but instead chose to hide behind the literary curtain of “satire.” Your action equates to nothing more than a lame excuse.

The difference between your piece and Swift’s is that “Gulliver’s Travels” was recognized as satire. Your own words illustrate that you didn’t believe your letter was satirical. No, Mr. Lewis, you were serious.

Sincerely,

- Jake Olden Shy

MORE: Hot Air; The Colossus

In an open letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Lewis of The Huffington Post, is calling on General Peter Pace to arrest the President for “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” Mr. Lewis cites the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as the law giving the military the authority to arrest its commander-in-chief.

I’ve never in my life heard of anything more asinine!

I don’t expect members of the civilian population to understand the military as an organization. This is especially true when considering the unique justice system used by the U.S. military. I understand this ignorance because a civilian doesn’t serve in the military and doesn’t have experience with the UCMJ. However, I can’t accept as ignorance the position taken by Mr. Lewis. He is a journalist and his job is to speak in facts. Even when writing an opinion piece like the article referenced, if his opinion isn’t based on factual information, any assertions he makes are moot. No, Mr. Lewis isn’t allowed the benefit of ignorance; he is stupid!

Mr. Lewis believes Articles 133 and 134 of the UCMJ give General Pace the authority to arrest the President.

Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming An Officer And A Gentleman, states,

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.

The elements are:

1. That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
2. That, in the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

The key to this article is in who it applies to. This article specifically applies to someone who is an “officer” and a “gentleman.” This article applies to any commissioned officer, cadet or midshipman. A commissioned officer is confirmed by Congress to serve as an officer in the military. Contrast this with a noncommissioned officer who simply enlists in the military. Cadets and Midshipmen are students studying to be officers, such as those in the service academies. A commissioned officer is also expected to be a “gentleman,” who has a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty. An officer and a gentleman who commits such acts violates article 133 and is subject to courts martial.

Article 134, General Article, states,

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.

Article 134 is considered to be a “catch-all” for various offenses that aren’t necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, unclean equipment, improper wear of military uniform, abuse of public animals, adultery, bigamy, bribery, fraternization, etc. This article applies to all those serving in the U.S. military.

It is true, as Mr. Lewis states, quoting Article 7 of the UCMJ, that

“commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers” are “authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this chapter or to trial thereunder may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.”

The key words in that portion of the article are “persons subject to this chapter.” This means the aforementioned officers only have authority to apprehend persons subject to the UCMJ. Article 2 of the UCMJ lists those who are subject to the UCMJ:

1. Members of a regular component of the armed forces (i.e. active duty military)
2. Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.
3. Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard when in Federal Service.
4. Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
5. Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
6. Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
7. Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
8. Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
9. Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
10. In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
11. Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
12. Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

Where does it say, “The President of the United States”? Guess what, Mr. Lewis, it doesn’t! General Pace has no more authority to arrest the President than he does to arrest you.

However, the The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, defines a coup d’état as

A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d’état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power. Coup d’état is French for “stroke of the state” or “blow to the government.”

emphasis added

Isn’t that exactly what you’re asking for, Mr. Lewis? Funny, if you had suggested this in Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, you’d have been shot! Thank heavens you’re in America! Right?

More: Captain’s Quarters; Hot Air; Wake up America!; Stop the ACLU; Rhymes with Right; The Moderate Voice; Daily Pundit; Hegemonic Pundit; Blue Crab Boulevard; The American Mind; Q&O

UPDATE:

PHOTO: Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir