Grumbling Soldiers Could Face Punishment

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=7&u=/ap/20030718/ap_on_re_us/iraq_grumbling_soldiers

WASHINGTON - The Army is considering whether to punish soldiers in Iraq (news - web sites) who griped about conditions there to a television reporter, a Pentagon (news - web sites) spokeswoman said Friday.

Some soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division complained to ABC-TV this week after their units were told they would be leaving Iraq soon, then had their homecoming postponed. One called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Criticism of superior officers is a breach of military rules. The Army will determine whether any soldier will be charged with breaking those rules, said Pentagon spokeswoman Chief Petty Officer Diane Perry.

On Wednesday, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said the soldiers' comments show the frustration of troops who are ready to go home.

more

[hlthe2b]

1. Bastards.....

I only hope these troops (and all of us) will see the karmic reward that the Bushies are long due....

So, Rove, is this the strategy you had in mind to get those military votes?

[roguevalley]

2. Isn't that just too repug for belief?

Punish them? What more can they do? Extend their sta-. Oh, right.

[Runesong]

3. They can't be punished,

unless they were specifically ordered not to "grumble"

Someone posted this earlier on this forum:

Please note the highlighted "COMMISSIONED OFFICER"

Uniform Code of Military Justice

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.

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[Cha]

6. Course, that never stops the facists or corporatists or whatever

they should be aptly called. They kill People to get what they want.

[rppper]

26. nope, they can under ucmj article 134.....

article 134 is a catch all.......

“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.”

trust me...been there done that.......

[mumon]

31. Funny, it would seem that the Joint Chiefs of staff would be guilty based

on that.

After all, getting involved in this bull shit is "to the prejuidice of good order."

OK, can we gut our military now? Please?

[atreides1]

32. Yeah

Worked for JAG, this would be a stretch. The prosecutor would have to prove that what was said affected the good order and discipline of the unit.

Considering that these guys are still going on patrols, and have not staged a mutiny, it wouldn't stick. Not to mention the bad PR it would have on Shrub and the Repukes.

[Cha]

4. Man, if I were a Soldier in the mess and heard that one of my

own got into trouble ..Big Time because of telling the truth about the conditions and who was at fault, I would be so Pissed!

[NYC]

5. They did not criticize superior officers. They criticized Rumsfeld.

There's a difference.

In either case, punishing them or threatening to punish them will only make the others grumble more. They'll just do it quietly.

I am not surprised the army is seeking to punish.

[realFedUp]

7. What, like cutting their families health benefits, or schooling or

income, or making them wear full combat gear in the hottest
of hells....

Yeah, punish them, bring them home.

[rexcat]

8. It will be interesting to see what re-enlistment numbers

will be in the mean time! This will cause such a moral problem, not that they don't have one now!

[lolly]

9. What would help?

Would calling congressional reps. and asking them to protect these people help? Or make it worse?

Who else could we call? I really feel bad about these guys.

[NNN0LHI]

10. I predict that the grumbling will end and fraggings will increase n/t

[goforit]

11. Off to Guatanamo!...........Ouch!

:(

[OneOneBravo]

12. Article 134

I hate to say it, but you folks quoting the UCMJ are missing the biggie:

**********

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 don't think this has changed since my Fun Travel & Adventure days ended in 1969.

This is where they always can get you, unfortunately. The armed foces of the US is NOT a democracy.

[OneOneBravo]

14. Premature Alzheimers or Freudian Slip

I meant to say "armed forces" ( or was it army feces ? )

[CHIMO]

17. Whatever Way You Cut It

It doesen't look good.

Does it require a draft now.

How do you keep up morale?

If the foot soldier is not happy then one will have a quagmire.

It doesn't look good.

[RapidCreek]

19. An enlisted man....

Who expresses his opinion about being lied to is not inciting or promoting disorder or a lack of discipline, nor is he, by said expression, neglecting his duties. An enlisted man who honestly describes a lie he was told by a civilian director and expresses discontent over said lie does not serve to discredit the armed forces. The lie itself and the person or persons responsible for its commission are what bring about such discredit and the subsequent disorder and lack of discipline which may ensue as a result of this commission.

There is no foundation for Article 134s application.

RC

[OneOneBravo]

28. You are unfortunately incorrect about Art.134

Having 4 years in the USA - '66 to '69 ( including 2 tours as a Combat Infantryman in the RVN ), I have seen article 134 applied more than once. Its ambiguity lends itself to abuse. It is the "ultimate threat" used against the EM then and now. Habeas Corpus - what's that ???

A more likely scenario is Article 15 - Non-Judicial Punishment - with the threat of 134 if there is a repetition of the "offense".

I think nothing serious will happen to these folks - their "offense" is too public and seen by many ( including me ) as just ordinary griping.

I wish I had a videotape of the reaction in my platoon and company in the spring of 1968 to LBJ's "I won't run for reelection" speech. We were "in the Rear" watching it on AFVN TV - empty cans of Carlings and Vienna Sausages launched at the TV screen by one and all - E-5 thru O-3 !!!

[trogdor]

13. So, what ya gonna do, sir? Take my stripes away?

Get some other schmuck to lead this motley platoon? Don't do me any favors.

How about if I were to write a letter to my elected Democratic representatives (HRC), and have them read my grievances on CSPAN? What ya gonna do then?

[IndianaGreen]

21. We will bust you down to private and ship you home in disgrace!

Wait! We can't say, we will have a flood of GIs wanting to get shipped home.

[TankLV]

22. What was that routine from Catch 22?

You'd be crazy NOT to want out of the war, but to get it, you'd have to be crazy, and WANT to be in the war, in which case you'd stay because you'd want to be there ..... oooooo I have a headache!

Wonder if we'll see a lot of homoSEXuls now?

Calling corporal Klinger!

[OneOneBravo]

15. Article 134 Link

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134.htm

[Rebellious Republican]

16. Anyone that would like to help protect these soldiers can ...

contact these folks to see what you can do!
http://www.mfso.org/
Military Families Speak Out is an organization of people who are opposed to war in Iraq and who have relatives or loved ones in the military. We were formed in November of 2002 and have contacts with military families throughout the United States, and in other countries around the world.

As people with family members and loved ones in the military, we have both a special need and a unique role to play in speaking out against war in Iraq. It is our loved ones who will be on the battlefront. It is our loved ones who will risk injury and death. It is our loved ones who will return scarred from having injured innocent Iraqi civilians.

If you have family members or loved ones in the military and you are opposed to this war, join us. Send us an e-mail at [e-mail] .

:kick:

[RapidCreek]

18. Uh sorry folks

But these non-commissioned soldiers didn't criticize superior officers....they criticized Donald Rumsfeld...which is completely legal for them to do.

This is just Rethuglican terrorism of our soldiers.....Good to see they support the troops!

Odd don't you think, that our suggestion that they shouldn't be sent as mercenary invaders was un-supportive but Rethugs asserting that they shouldn't come home....and shouldn't be pissed about being lied to about coming home is somehow supportive.

RC

[trogdor]

25. The Sec. Def. is in the chain of command.

He is therefore off-limits, well, as much as * is.

I still think it's interesting that many of these are willing to put their names on their statements. That takes balls. Brass ones. It's still technically wrong, and saying "Mr. Rumsfeld is apparently in over his head, IMO" is a lot different from saying "Rummy doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground," but "disrespect" is pretty subjective, especially when you have to convince a court-martial of dittomonkeys hand-selected by the old man that you weren't being disrespectful towards the crazy old fool.

Better take the Article 15.

[IndianaGreen]

20. This is how Republicans support the troops!

The troops are nothing but backdrops for GOP patriotic speeches, but when the grunts complained about the Iraqi mess they were put in by the neocon Chickenhawks, the "support the troops" becomes a "support Bush or off with your stripes!"

[Rose Siding]

23. Weren't ribbons given for speaking that way about

President Clinton? /sarcasm

I read the final paragraph and realized those rules must have been suspended in the 90s.

[FlaGranny]

30. Well, yes, isn't that the truth.

Yes, it seems from the early 90s to 2000, they did suspend enforcement of the "rules." Not only did they suspend enforcement, it seems they even encouraged breaking them. What a difference a few years makes.

[lebkuchen]

24. Blame the soldiers? Now there's a recipe for disaster.

Go ahead, George. Bring it on. If you want troop support, you're going to get it, at your expense, of course.

[radfringe]

27. perhaps there is a way around this for our troops

when asked about their feeling/morale they could answer "Sorry, but I'd be punished if I told you the truth"

[snippy]

29. How republican.

[Resistance Is Futile]

33. Military not the place for politics

Uniformed troops criticising the civilian leadership is just not acceptable regardless of who (or in the current case, what) is in office. This principle goes right to the heart of civilian control over the military and is more important than scoring small points against the PNAC Junta. Soldiers where punished for saying similarly uncomplementary things about Clinton (IIRC in one incident a lt. col was kicked out), BTW.

What's very GOP here, however, is the way the White House has directed its media minions to attack the reporter who asked the questions. See

http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030718.ukoff0719/BNStory/National/
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/18/kofman_030718

for current coverage.