A military note.

[gridlore]

I'm following a lot of discussion threads about the resignation of General McChrystal. One of the common complaints is that this somehow violates Gen. McChrystal's freedom of speech.

The military operates under a special set of laws called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These laws are just like any regular law, passed by Congress as a package and signed by the President, but apply only to members of the US military and to military installations. The relevant code here is Article 88:

“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.”

There is a separate Article covering enlisted troops.

We live on discipline in the services. We require it. An army depends on mutual lines of respect up and down the chain of command, and that includes the civilian power structure. Especially the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. We are also trained to be polite to officials, no matter what we think about them. That training served me well when Vice-President Bush shook my hand in Hawaii.

That Gen. McChrystal and his immediate staff were so contemptuous over multiple encounters with a reporter shows that McChrystal had fostered a climate of disrespect for the National Command Authority. That is unforgivable.

Comments

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

I've been following this with some interest. Either McChrystal and his staff are a bunch of careless, undisciplined, indiscreet blabbermouths, or this was calculated and deliberate, done in furtherance of somebody's agenda.

Whose and what might that be, I wonder...

[seawasp]

Exactly. You still have freedom of speech -- but you have agreed to specific consequences if you exercise that freedom, predicated on the assumption that there is a very important value to the unified front presented by the military.

There may be times you DO have to exercise that right, just as there are times you may have to choose to disobey direct orders -- if you feel the orders are unjust, or if the President is doing something directly contrary to your understanding of your requirement to defend the USA from all enemies, foreign AND domestic, but in those cases you still accept that you are taking the risk that it will not be viewed that way by anyone else, and you will be court-martialed and subjected to penalties which may be very extreme indeed.

[kengr]

Contrary to popular belief, freedom of speech does not mean that you can't be subject to consequences for what you say. Libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc are all laws that mandate consequences for saying certain things.

Freedom of speech just means that the government can't pass laws or take actions to *prevent* you from speaking your mind. It *can* pass laws mandating penalties for saying things that cause harm.

And as Elizabeth Moon points out here saying the sorts of things he said *does* do harm.

[glinda-w.livejournal.com]

Yes, all that, exactly.

But I hadn't expected this part:

We are also trained to be polite to officials, no matter what we think about them. That training served me well when Vice-President Bush shook my hand in Hawaii.

*kittens coffee all over keyboard and monitor* :)

[fangedfaerie.livejournal.com]

Several friends and family have very different, and sometimes vehemently opposing, political views compared to my own. But one thing that many of them agree about: even if you can't respect the individual, respect the office.

[jemstone.livejournal.com]

I'm linking this from my own journal, because you said it much better than I could.

I know you won't mind if I do, but I figured I'd say so here, just to cover the base. :)

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

I agree. I've been seeing this as a remarkably consistent response among the professional soldiers I know.