During the previous administration a number of retired senior officers received public scorn for making disparaging remarks about President Obama. Many in the press commented that not only were the remarks inappropriate, but that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) they might be charged.

Seeming to confirm that position, last February the Supreme Court refused to review a case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed and convicted of sexual assault, thereby upholding the service’s authority to prosecute a retired Marine for crimes committed after leaving the service.

And then there’s Article 88 of the UCMJ, which reads:

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.

So, some recent commentary by several four star officers:

“The America that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within”

“(The President) is destroying the Republic!”

“And if this President doesn’t understand their importance, if this president doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better The fate of our Republic depends upon it.”

Hmmm…

What about this?

“I’m here to tell you face to face, [Mr.] President, that you violated that oath [the oath of office] …when you deliberately played upon the fear and fatigue of the people and told them they could remove that fear by the stroke of a pen [W]hen this nation rejected you, lost faith in you, and began … to oppose you, you violated that oath by not resigning from office and turning the country over to someone who could represent the people of the United States.”

The first three remarks come from a recent article written by a retired 4-star Admiral, stating both what he believes and, in the second item (“…destroying the Republic”), quoting another – unidentified – 4-star officer.

The last item above is from General James M. Scott (brilliantly played by Burt Lancaster), from the movie “Seven Days in May,” the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who is leading a coup against the President.

Maybe it’s me, but the four remarks – one from the movie, the other three from real 4-star officers – seem to be cut from the same cloth…

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. But when you’re serving in uniform, public negative commentary about the chain of command or about our system of government is, in fact, not allowed. Depending on what is said, and where, and by whom, it can be simple insubordination, or something a lot worse. As you rise in rank those restrictions become more restrictive (or should).

When you retire from active duty you receive a stipend (a fairly generous one) that increases as you rise in rank. In the case of the Admiral, that works out to roughly $17,000 per month for the rest of his life. This money is incorrectly referred to as “retirement pay.” In fact, that money was referred to as “half pay” for generations, functioning as a retainer to keep talented officers available for service in the event of a crisis To this day all retired military personnel are subject to recall to active duty by their service, though the practice is little used. Never-the-less, “retirement pay” – particularly in the case of 3 and 4 star officers, who are sometimes called back to service to lead special investigations – might accurately be termed a retainer. In short, retirees are still, in a real sense, members of the Army or Navy, etc.

The Admiral could have been just a citizen engaged in an impassioned polemic – protected by the First Amendment – except for three things: 1) he is a 4-star officer – still on half pay. 2) the title of his article leaves little room for maneuver: “Our Republic is Under Attack From the President.” He directly names the President as the threat to our nation, and 3) his call for the President to be replaced “the sooner the better.” He is not suggesting due process or voting against him in the next election, he is calling for the President to be replaced – soon.

If he’d called for an impeachment – within the specific processes and guarantees of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that would be one thing. Or if he’d called on the President to resign. He did neither.

I’d like to believe he isn’t inciting a revolt, but whatever he meant, his words will be used by others to suit their purposes.

He needs to make himself clear. Because as it stands, the Admiral’s words suggest he thinks the President is on the verge of destroying the Republic and the Admiral’s answer seems to be that we should destroy the Constitution as well – the Constitution he swore to protect.
Perhaps the answer is also found in “Seven Days In May,” when the beleaguered President confronts the General and tells him:

“Then, by God, run for office. You have such a fervent, passionate, evangelical faith in this country – why in the name of God don’t you have any faith in the system of government you’re so hell-bent to protect?”

The Admiral’s remarks feed the narrative from the far left that we need a coup. Which could lead, I suppose, to a backlash among those who thought their vote meant something and among those who may not like the current president but do believe that the Constitution also has meaning. All of which starts to look like things are going to deteriorate fast. Before that happens, we need people like the Admiral and General to stand up and start acting calmly and responsibly. They can begin by calling for any action to be strictly within both the bounds of the Constitution and the due process of the law.

Nothing else is acceptable.

Copyright 2019 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com