But were those active duty officers openly critical or just saying they disagreed and were going to resign their commissions because they disagreed? I would also disagree with this author's conclusions because they are allowed to disagree privately...just not publically. So if a general and one of his buddies talk amongst themselves in private and say...hey I really have some strong moral issues with what the bush admin is doing. His buddy agrees and says, yeah, I have been thinking of resigning my commission because of it. They both agree to do so, they haven't broken any laws. Now if they were in the office and said that in front of the troops...that would be a different story and then they would be subject to prosecution by the UCMJ.
-----Original Message----- From: Maureen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:46 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Stanley McChrystal out? There were a number of active duty officers openly critical of President Bush and Rumsfeld. "On April 18, 2006 Tony Blankley, editorial-page editor of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's staunchly pro-Bush Washington Times, raised the prospect of sedition charges against active-duty military officers who - in collusion with the retired generals - might be considering resignations in protest of Bush's war policies. "Can a series of lawful resignations turn into a mutiny?" Blankley wrote. "And if they are agreed upon in advance, have the agreeing generals formed a felonious conspiracy to make a mutiny?" Blankley wrote that this possible "revolt" by the generals "comes dangerously close to violating three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice," including "mutiny and sedition." Blankley thus raised the specter of courts martial against officers who resign rather than carry out orders from Bush." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/17/20060417-094715-2092r/ On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually the generals that publically complained were already retired. None > of the active duty generals were the ones complaining. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Munn [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:40 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Stanley McChrystal out? > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I see two things, separately, in there. One is McChrystal's take on >> the military aspect of things. I can respect his disagreement with >> tactics, strategy and execution. > > Agreed, he's a military man, this is his expertise. > > The other is bad mouthing your >> bosses. And, quite frankly, you just don't go around bad mouthing your >> bosses publicly. It is disrespectful. > > which is the irony of this particular administration coming down on > him for it after the left cheered when generals under bush complained. > still, he should go if he can't take order from the cnc. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:321814 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
