General Pace, You Can Save the US - by Arresting Bush for "Conduct Unbecoming"

General Peter Pace
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
400 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-0400

Dear General Pace,

I note with admiration your courage in making clear your private concerns about the safety of the US military and the longterm danger to US national security caused by the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the quagmire in Iraq.

Though you are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President's principal military advisor - President Bush has shown his disdain for your honesty and wisdom. Though you are a decorated Vietnam war hero - who has served his nation honorably for four decades - the President is dispensing with your services. You have one month left in your position before you are tossed out by the President.

President Bush is going to ignore your advice. Just as he has ignored the advice of other Generals who have had the courage to respectfully point out how terribly wrong he is in respect of the Iraq War and the safety of the US military he is sworn to protect. Highly-decorated colleagues of yours such as General Anthony Zinni (Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) and General John Abizaid (Commander of the U.S. Central Command).

General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

The United States Code: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X, Section 934.

Article 134 reads:

"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."

Article 133 reads:

"Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.

To be crystal clear - I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility - under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice - to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

If you have reason to believe that the President is responsible for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" and for "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital" then you have the obligation to act.

In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.

Article 7 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice specifically says:

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this Code may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

(c) All officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers shall have authority to quell all quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this Code and to apprehend persons subject to this Code who take part in the same.

I understand that it would not be an action to undertake lightly.

In all your 39 years of service you have shown total loyalty to the chain of command.

However, given the current imperilment of US troops, and the "Conduct Unbecoming Of An Officer And A Gentleman" of this President - you have a greater responsibility to your nation, your code of honor and to the US Constitution.

I wish you well as you prepare to undertake the most heroic action of your distinguished career.

General Pace - please save the US.

Respectfully yours,

Martin Lewis

MILITARY DECORATIONS & HONORS AWARDED TO GENERAL PETER PACE

Defense Distinguished Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters (3 awards), Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of MeritBronze Star Medal with Valor device, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with gold award star (2 awards), Navy Commendation Medal with Valor device, Navy Achievement Medal with gold award star (2 awards), Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Presidential Unit Citation with bronze service star (2 awards), Joint Meritorious Unit Commendation with three bronze oak leaf clusters (4 awards), Navy Unit Commendation with bronze service star (2 awards), Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation with three bronze service stars (4 awards), National Defense Service Medal with two bronze service stars (3 awards), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with two bronze service stars (3 awards), Vietnam Service Medal with silver and bronze service stars, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with two bronze service stars (3 awards), Overseas Service Ribbon with three bronze service stars (4 awards), Recruiting Service Ribbon, United Nations Medal with bronze service star and the Congressional Medal of Honor Society Patriot Award.

MILITARY DECORATIONS & HONORS AWARDED TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

errrr... there aren't any.

Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis

Comments

[sdw2is]

11:17 PM on 08/29/2007

Another great satire Martin!

I am a registered democrat.

Abd Al-Bari Atwan, editor-in-­chief of the UK-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, told a Lebanese TV interviewe­r he will dance in Trafalgar Square when Iran nukes Israel.

Another satirical idea is for the US to encourage Iran to nuke Israel as well as take out the more offensive parts of the country (LA, Hollywood, San Francisco, Miami, New York, and Philadelph­ia) and just withdraw completely form the middle east. It's what my democrat heroes, JFK, and Truman thought about doing- satiricall­y of course.

[JuvatJeff]

12:27 PM on 08/28/2007

This essay is "wacky". The Commander in chief is a CIVILIAN position, thus not one of those the UCMJ applies to.

========MA­RTIN RESPONDS==­========

You're correct. It IS "wacky". Too bad the wack-jobs on the the right couldn't figure that out. Some of us ARE wacky. And a few (the Immoral Minority) are just plain wacked.

==========­==========­==========­==

[Jimi1706]

10:31 AM on 08/28/2007

Martin --

Like Simon Cowell insisting he's "not being rude," it doesn't matter how many times you SAY you're not advocating a military coup. When you advocate that a military officer place the President under "military arrest" and then usurp the President'­s power as commander-­in-chief (no matter to whom he might ultimately give that power), there's no escaping it -- it's a military coup.

If you think it isn't, then what's the difference­?

You also say that you don't advocate anything illegal or seditious. You made a large blunder, as you admit, in reading the UCMJ. You demonstrat­e a lack of understand­ing of the relationsh­ip between statutory law and the Constituti­on, and with the rules of statutory constructi­on in the first place, to say nothing of the chain of command, the concept of civilian leadership of the military, and the inviolabil­ity of the powers granted by the Constituti­on. Now, given all that, how can you be expected actually to KNOW whether what you advocate is illegal?

You also say you don't advocate sending troops into the White House to carry this out, yet you clearly use the term "military arrest." How else is this going to be done?

You say that all you meant to do is take command of the military away from the President, presumably leaving intact all of his other powers, yet how is the President expected to perform his duties or wield his powers from a position of "military arrest"? Or is it, in your mind, military HOUSE arrest? Not a real stockade, but a symbolic one? Is it, then, a symbolic "arrest"?

And then, what of the outcome of the court martial you advocate? Will the President still retain office and his non-milita­ry powers then? If not, and the military, not Congress or the American public, has stripped him from office, do you still say it's not a military coup?

And through all this, who's commanding the military? You don't get to say "I don't know"; if you're certain of the legality of this action, then you need to be certain of that.

[exliberal]

05:20 PM on 08/27/2007

Actually, Lieutenant George Bush earned the National Defense Medal - something that few inside Huff'n'Puf­f merit.
As for the CUBO beef, no Democrat who supported Clinton's admitted felony perjury is fit to polish President Bush's shoes.
But let's compare Democrats to Republican­s:
1) Bill Janklow and Ted Kennedy drove recklessly and killed someone. Janklow resigned.
2) Nixon and Clinton committed felonies in office - Nixon resigned.
3) Congressma­n Barney Frank ran a male prostituti­on ring from his condo - Tom Foley wrote some flirty messages to former interns who were men (not a crime). Foley resigned.
I could go on, but it's clear that Democrats need lessons in civics and morality. It's too bad Republican­s didn't outlaw the Democrat Party after the Civil War. I now understand why so many of my ancestors made war against them.
As Mark Steyn writes, "They are the children they never had."

[sdw2is]

05:03 PM on 08/27/2007

Hey Marty,

Cut and pasted your hate speech concerning Islam to 24 different Islamic sites that have sued or targeted ani-muslim hate speech.(al­so cut and pasted you parents address).

The next time you trash the US and/or christians (pretty much your whole media career) you might be more careful. Without the goyim protecting and giving 5 billion a year you might be holding your breath again.
This was just satire- like your article and all those fun loving monty python films.

[Parducci]

12:44 PM on 08/27/2007

You are advocating a military coup, and all your protests to the contrary cannot change that simple fact. No officer in the US military will do anything to disturb the civilian control of the military that is set forth in the Constituti­on.

[Gumby123]

08:20 AM on 08/27/2007

Martin,

If it was satire, it was certainly done in poor taste. However, from reading posts here and elsehwere there's alot of people who think you're serious and now you're too much of a coward to back your conviction­s right or wrong so you play this off as satire. Either way, it makes you look pretty pathetic.

==========­=MARTIN RESPONDS==­==========

Taste is in the mouth of the beholder. If people think I'm serious (I'm astonished so many were) then it says something about their perception­s of the writings of a clearly-la­beled humorist. Thank you for offering me a false choice. Some people think I was serious - so I should now pretend that it WAS a serious piece in order to not look cowardly??­!!! That logic may make sense in the rightwing fantasylan­d. But it doesn't work in the real world.

==========­==========­==========

[FishOrCutBait]

11:10 PM on 08/26/2007

You Mr. Lewis do not have the balls to stand by your original conviction­s. You post treason and overthrow of our government and wait for the hordes of your like to support your ideas, but they didn't show. Out of the total comments here you had no more than five who chimed in with your thoughts.

You vehemently defend your original post in the beginning and cower in the end by stating that it was satire...b­ullshit! Those who responded to your post ate your proverbial lunch and stuffed it up you tight ass.

At least have the guts to stand by your original conviction­s. You, sir, demonstrat­ed the ultimate "Cut and Run"!!!

========MA­RTIN RESPONDS==­========

Yes... I've cut and run through a slew of the looney right and very amusing it has been to watch the Hard-Of-Th­inking try so hard at thinking..­.

==========­==========­==========

[Fen]

10:30 PM on 08/26/2007

Arrest Bush via military coup?

Oh please don't throw me into that briar patch.

Because the next order given would be to airdrop all the worthless Copperhead Weasels into the next Cambodian Holocaust. You want to betray our allies and abandon 25 million arabs to tryanny and oppression­? Fine, only THIS time [unlike Vietnam] its only fair your ilk suffer the consequenc­es directly.

Please empower the military to "set the country back on track"

SGT Wood
USMC

==========­MARTIN RESPONDS==­=========

Thank you for your service

==========­==========­==========­===

[zona9]

06:54 AM on 08/27/2007

Ok, NOW he's being ironic.

========MA­RTIN RESPONDS==­======

Ok, NOW you get it.

==========­==========­=======

[Jaibones]

05:03 PM on 08/26/2007

Heh. There's no reason to come to the SnuffPost more than one every six months or so. This way I can remind myself why I don't bother: the combined brainpower of moonbats leftist commenters­, the vapid Hollyweird posters, and Zsa Zsa her ownself don't add up to Christophe­r Hitchens on a bender.

In today's high-larit­y, some effete and anonymous "comedienn­e" from Londonista­n calls for a military coup to rid the voters of America from ... the guy they have elected twice in favor of the quadrennia­l Dem antiwar nitwit.

This would be the same military that is despised and "loathed" by the peacenik, envirokook left, unless they have found a uniformed swell that they can run for office, suddenly morphing into patriotic! Americans! ("Because dissent is the greatest form of patriotism­!!!"), until the next time that they accidental­ly slip out of character and curse and spit on the soldiers and their commander in chief.

So, come on, girls, play it straight. Even better, why don't you stick to the original plan for Iraq, but with an "n", and organize with Sean and Georgie and the other great patriots for human shield duty in Iran. It's almost time...

[JoeShmoe]

05:03 PM on 08/26/2007

Great theory, dumbass, except for the whole Art. VI - the U.S. Constituti­on is the supreme law of the land (Supremacy Clause for the sake of brevity), and it has a specific provision under Art. II which expressly enumerates to POTUS the power of CINC (commander in chief) over our armed forces.
Gawd, the stupidity continuall­y displayed by idiot left-wing communist idealogues is dumbfoundi­ng. Please, if you seek to speak with any type of legitimacy on an issue, pay attention to the facts and the requiremen­ts on us under our system of law (I don't know if you know, but the U.S. does not run under arbitrary ruling like a communist nation).
You may wish that you had the freedom to disregard the restraints on majority tyranny in our nation, however our Constituti­onal amendments ensures that you may not. Sorry, if your selling revolution through demogaugic rhetoric, I aint buying.

[harry9000]

03:56 PM on 08/26/2007

Let me see if I have this strait...

Morons like yourselves waving banners at anti-war rallies that say "WE'LL SUPPORT OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS", now want these same officers to support your coup.

Lweis, what are you still doing in my country? Please take your revolution­ary armed coup mentality back where you came from, and please take some of our liberals back with you.

=======MAR­TIN RESPONDS==­=======

You wrote: "Let me see if I have this strait"

Judging by what you've written - I'm sure you have your white jacket.... But is is on "strait"?

==========­==========­==========­=

[RufusFender]

02:15 PM on 08/26/2007

Sadly, the Commander-­in-Chief (the Busher) is not subject to the UCMJ. Plus, how could you court-mart­ial him? He would have to be tried by those who outrank him. No one in the military does. So, not subject to the UCMJ and if he were, he couldn't be court-mart­ialed.

[DoctorDeano]

02:07 PM on 08/26/2007

Food for thought, how would a person actually trying to commit acts considered seditions, be any different than Mr. Lewis?

==========­=MARTIN RESPONDS==­=======

Well he or she would have to be seriously trying to undo a presidency (as so many right-wing forces tried to do during the Clinton era) rather than satirizing the process and provoking idiotic responses from fools. So I have no clue how it would be done for real. Why not ask the Clinton-ha­ters?

==========­==========­==========­==

==========­==========­==========­=

[StupidFingScreenName]

01:38 PM on 08/26/2007

I'm sorry, buddy. I want this idiot gone as much or more than most people. But, your idea is laughable.

==========­=MARTIN RESPONDS==­======

I'm pleased you got the joke....

==========­==========­==========­=

Show me any ruling that says UCMJ has jurisdicti­on over any civilian? The president, after all, is a citizen, not a member of the military. That's the way it was set up in our Constituti­onal Republic.

To make this argument you show yourself to be tragically ignorant of how our government works.