Well, we have a general idea of what GEN McChrystal is accused of saying, as well of supposed statements of other officers. As I was driving home today I heard a story that he’d submitted a resignation – from the Army, or his current position? USA Today has this piece in which they report a resignation and a denial that a resignation has been submitted. There are so many puns about crystal and star gazing. But sadly there’ll be little humor in what’s going on. From a military justice practice perspective, how many clients have been accused and disciplined for similar types of disrespect?
The LA Times has this piece about the increasing politicalization of the military (something I somewhat tongue in cheek commented was behind LTC Lakin’s contumacy):
Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s criticism of Obama administration officials symbolizes an accelerated partisanship of the officer corps.
Here is a link to a 1999, Army Lawyer article which discusses prior cases of Article 88, UCMJ, issues (does McCarthur ring a bell). See, LTC Michael J. Davidson, Contemptuous Speech Against the President, Army Lawyer, July 1999.
These issues were debated to some extent during the presidential campaigns.
Article 88, UCMJ, 10 U. S. Code 888,
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.
At what point do public comments of senior officers remain purely disciplinary in the same manner as the enlisted soldier who gets prosecuted, disciplined, or chucked out, rather than having the luxury of resignation or other symbolic gestures.