Army and the Air Force have warned troops “that it is a crime for
officers to express contempt for the nation’s political leaders,”
according to a
story in the Washington Post. (One wonders whether this
crime has been tested against the First Amendment).
warnings were sent by Brig. Gen. Jack Rives, described by the post
as “the top lawyer for the Air Force’s Air Combat Command,” and
Col. James Rosenblatt, described as “the staff judge advocate for
the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command.” According to the Post,
the Army sent its message after Rosenblatt saw the Air Force message.
warnings are based on Article
88 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, violation of which can lead to dismissal
from service and a year in prison. Despite this fact, the Navy and
Marine Corps have not issued such warnings.
first, one might be angered that military personnel, deprived of
their voting rights as American citizens, may face punishment for
speaking out against the pack of thieves known as Al Gore’s legal
is of course essential to military discipline in a republic such
as the united States that the military be subservient to the political
institutions. To have things the other way around would make us
truly a banana republic. Despite this fact, the military has been
treated in a most despicable way by the Democratic party.
the fact that this is not the first run-in of this kind between
the Democrats and the military. One of Bill Clinton’s first acts
in office was to promulgate the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy effectively
allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. Shortly thereafter,
an admiral was reprimanded for saying publicly that he could not
guarantee Clinton’s safety on a visit to an aircraft carrier.
the Clinton administration, and Al Gore – that brainiac master
of details – must have heard about Article 88 of the Code of
Military Justice at that time.
wonders whether it came into play when Clinton invoked his “active
duty” status as Commander-in-Thief, er, Chief, to argue that he
did not have to defend himself against a civil suit for sexual harassment
while in office.
is particularly offensive if one considers the wars in which Democratic
presidents have sent American men – husbands, fathers, sons,
and brothers – to their deaths: World War One (Woodrow Wilson),
World War Two (F.D.R.), Korea (Harry Truman), Kennedy and Johnson
(Vietnam). There’s gratitude for you.
recently, Clinton has used the military as an instrument of his
never-ending public relations battle, dropping bombs when the Lewinsky
investigation hit the news, to name just one instance.
is compelled by logic and the public actions of the Democrats to
wonder if they were not counting on Article 88 in their decision
to systematically throw out military absentee ballots in Florida.
their defense, perhaps the Democrats were only trying to steal an
election like thugs, and now they are receiving the benefit of Article
88 in getting away with it.
doubt it. A military which has been twisted from an instrument of
national defense into a heavily armed social work agency now finds
its hard-working, underpaid members being deprived of their rights
“guaranteed” by the Constitution. (Note to Americans: the “guarantee”
is only as good as the scumbags you send to Washington.) If the
Democrats are devious enough to throw out military votes on phony
technicalities – such as alleging that absentee ballots from
the Middle East, a combat zone, require postmarks (which they do
not) – they are certainly devious enough (and cowardly) to
carry this out with the knowledge that their victims cannot fight
in that respect, the Democrats are wrong. The military has already
fought back against brainless social engineering – by voting
(but with its feet instead of ballots). The armed forces are now
struggling to keep talented young Americans in uniform. This latest
abuse of the men and women of the military can – and should
– only hasten the brain drain. So long as Americans tolerate
the garbage dished out by the Democrats, the Democrats will continue
to dish out garbage.
Dieteman is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate
in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.
2000 David Dieteman