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

[whatstheidea]

What your "proposing" is akin to a Private arresting his Sargent because..w­ell..just because.

This has to be one of the most ignorant and most ridiculous posts ever to grace the pages of the Huffington Post. Congratulations.

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

Why thank you! It's always nice to read superlativ­es...

And if the sergeant (I think that's the word you were trying to spell) was Bilko...?

==========­==========­=========

[speranza]

xxx

[huffnpuffn]

Ah. A military coup. Briiiiiilliant solution to an elected leader whom you dislike.

=========MARTIN RESPONDS==­==========

I do NOT suggest or advocate any such action. On the contrary - I expressly say that the General must NOT undertake any mutinous or seditious act. Publicly expressing that he is relieving Mr. Bush of his command would be a noble gesture - not an actual siezure of power. An avowal of his duty to protect the brave armed forces from abuse.

==========­==========­==========­==

[section9]

Baloney.

You are advocating a coup d'etat and are rationalizing it otherwise.

Peter Pace cannot "arrest" or "relieve" Bush of his command of the armed forces without the agency of a coup. Period. Any other assertion shows a childlike ignorance of reality.

Congratulations: liberalism has now descended to a sneaking admiration for the way they do things in Paraguay. Where is Hugo Banzer when we need him!

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

Rotting in his grave - along with Pinochet and other murdering reactionary dictators who were so popular with Richard Nixon.

Like at least 70% of people in the USA, I long for the return of decent, constitutionally respectful government in the US. But I utterly reject any calls for that being achieved with force or illegal actions. General Pace will do what his conscience dictates. Or not. But he knows what a Gentleman is. And he knows what Gentlemanly Conduct is...

==========­==========­==========

[zona9]

Martin, your're British, don't worry your pretty little embarrassingly ignorant brain over the little ol' US. Especially when you are so painfully out of your league. You've been completely smacked down by poster after poster yet you're still plugging along, fingers in your ears.
Please, for the love of god, give it up.

Btw, like the shout out to Pinochet. You Europeans are so predictable. You guys love Castro, who has killed infinitely more people than Pinochet but, for some reason, Pinochet is always the go to guy when needing an example of nasty dictator. Gee, I wonder why that is?

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

To answer your last question - try asking the people of Chile. I know they can explain what you don't understand.

It is a badge of honor to be attacked by the ignorant and especially by those who cannot comprehend satire - so I don't worry about it!

==========­==========­==========

[bugscuffle]

I can't believe people are taking the time to write reasonable reponses to this insane, ignorant idea.

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

I'm kind of incredulous that you've responded too...

==========­==========­=======

[gitarfan]

The USMJ doesn NOT supersede the Constitution. A civics lesson would teach you that. You're an idiot BDS sufferer for even mentioning this.

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

Would that be the same civics lesson attended by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez & co?

==========­==========­==========

[gitarfan]

So far, their civics lesson have been spot on. If your fellow travelers in Congress could legitimately bring impeachment articles, they would have done so already. They haven't because they have no legal grounds to do so. Wishful thinking doesn't count. I am curious who you and those like you will direct all this vitriol at after 20 January, 2009?

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

The energy expended in protesting the multiple abrogations of decency over the past few years will be re-channeled into the hard work of restoring this fine nation after its eight-year detour and descent into Neanderthalism.

==========­==========­==========­=

[gitarfan]

We haven't descended anywhere or into anything, even into your made up words(Nean­derthalism­). Even France wants to get involved with Iraq now. Russia doesn't like what they see so they are doing what they always do, rattling their sabres to scare everyone. The majority of the governments of U.N. member countries are totalitarian in some fashion. We aren't, in case you haven't noticed. Focus some of that snake oil you're peddling at Iran, Syria or Cuba for that matter. It's just easier for you to direct it at the U.S. because we won't lock you up like Fidel does his critics.

[JThomasDuffy]

Martin

We don't need to bother Pace with this ... I advocated this, back on the 4th of July;

Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Garlictorial: Happy 4th of July ... Okay, It May Be Down To This .... Citizen's Arrest!
http://puregarlic.blogspot.com/2007/07/garlictorial-happy-4th-of-july-okay-it.html

Best part of this, we can use the Patriot Act!

Peace
JTD

[SamThornton]

I believe most people have yet to understand that there already has been a coup.

The extra-Cons­titutional powers granted to President Bush by Congress since 9/11, coupled with the even more sweeping powers the President has granted to himself through Executive Order, have effectively made the President an absolute dictator who operates without reference to either the Federal courts or the Congress.

At present we are one Presidential signature away from becoming a formal dictatorship. Through Executive Order, the President has only to declare a "national emergency" on any pretext and he instantly takes formal control of not only the Federal courts and Congress's legislative authority, but control over all state and local authorities and -- believe it or not -- even over all businesses in the private sector.

I fully understand that most people will read the above with disbelief. I would encourage those who wish to explore this further to examine the texts of President Bush's Executive Orders available at http://www.whitehouse.gov in which these new powers are spelled out.

The critical question is whether or not the President will exercise these powers before the end of his term of office. On the theory that he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of claiming these powers without an intent to use them, I believe he will exercise them and that there will be no elections held in November 2008.

Are there any remedies? It seems to me we're past the point of plausible remedies that would restore Constitutional government. What each of us now has to determine is how best to survive in the Bush Imperium.

[RealTruePatriot]

You're absolutely correct Sam Thornton! The coup already occurred. The results will be smack in the faces of all Americans very soon.
If there is enough Americans left after the coming holocaust to ask what happened, how & why, it may be determined that an overabundance of idiots thought they were being patriotic. I used to wonder how all the German citizens could wave Nazi flags in the late 1930's & early 1940's but now I know exactly how that happened.

[ProudAmericanLiberal]

Don't forget desertion.

[Scepticus]

The President holds no military office. Pace cannot "relieve" the president "of his command."

Congress can relieve the President of his office and thereby of his civilian authority as "commander in chief”, through the impeachment power. Article II, Section 4.

That is the only way -- other than by expiration of a president's second term in office (Amendment XXII, Section 1) or by the end of his first term following an election in which someone other than the incumbent president is elected -- that a sitting president can be "relieved" of his authority as commander in chief.

It is not "arguable as to the conflict between the Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The UCMJ on its face does not apply to non-military persons. Holding authority as commander in chief does not make the President a military person. If there were such a "conflict", under Marbury v. Madison any aspect of the UCMJ conflicting with the Constitution would be void and unenforceable.

whatever "legal ramifications" there may be to My Lai, because the President HAS no military command and is not an OFFICER, he cannot be relieved if his non-existent command under authority arising under the UCMJ.

It is beyond serious argument that any attempt by Pace to place under "military arrest" or "remove" the President from his authority as commander in chief would be most fundamentally offensive to the Constitution. The Secret Service would most assuredly have every right, and in fact every duty, to take immediate steps to prevent the act.

The suggestion appears more and more frequently on blogs such as this one that the military officers of the US have a duty to "do something" -- "take up arms against", here "arrest" or "remove from command" -- to halt Bush and Cheney. The military most definitely has no such authority, and no such duty, and it's a very good thing that they don't. If they did, or if anyone acted on the assumption that they did, we’d have a military dictatorship, not the happy outcome that the author of this article seems to imagine.

[gfm975]

Who cares if Martin Lewis is totally, partially or not at all correct with his view that General Pace could remove the Commander In Chief title from Bush?

Unfortunately, the fact remains that there are serious reasons to consider any and all scenarios, or remedies because of GWB, the worst President ever. Why should anyone else care about the rule of law when he hasn't concerned himself with it for the 6 long years while he has crapped all over the Constitution and ignored law after law?

I think that the creative thinking by Mr. Lewis should be commended and that if General Pace is the patriot he claims to be, he should consider the suggestion. My God, our nation as we know it is at stake.

[Doofus]

Technically, what M.L. is proposing falls into
the category of 'sedition', a quaint sort of
crime that is sometimes enforced, sometimes
not. Evidently, being British, he hasn't
entirely figured out how the US government
works.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has no
authority to do as suggested, none whatsoever.
Under a 'government of laws' such as ours, that
still counts for something.

Just because the Unitary President (& his
Unitary VP & his Unitary Attorney General,..­.)
get away with questionable behavior, doesn't
mean everybody can.

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

I am most certainly not proposing sedition. I am saying that General Pace has an authority - be it military, moral or notional - to use his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to announce that he is relieving the President of his role as Commander-In-Chief. It may not carry weight over the President's power. But the symobilsm of such an act in defense of America's beleagured and abused armed forces could resonate loudly.

==========­==========­=========

[Doofus]

Well then, who would become the new/acting CIC?

I guess that would have to be VP Cheney.

Did you have somebody in mind?

There is no basis for what you suggest in US law
or US tradition. It is, in effect, 'mutiny'.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER X > § 894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000894----000-.html

(Not being a lawyer, I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about.)

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

Would it have been mutiny or sedition to refuse the orders of Lieutenant Calley at My Lai?

Only a court martial could decide that.

Anyway - I don't wish General Pace to overthow the civil authority of Mr. Bush or commit any illegal act. A statement - even notional - that for the protection of the Armed Forces who he is sworn to protect - that he is relieving Mr. Bush of his command - would send a sgnal that he cares about his country above all else. Sometimes it takes one person to be noble...

==========­==========­==========­==

[loslobo]

Very interesting post and comments gang, they are appreciated. We all know Cheney is in charge anyway, so cutting off the head, the roach still lives (for a little while). How desperate have we become? We need a general to do the congress job. If I may dream a little dream, I am looking forward to the general who is willing to be a martyr, and admit he, among others committed treason before, during and after IX/XI under direct orders from Cheney. Maybe this act of repentance could save this country.

[Desiderata]

Had MacArthur court martialed Truman when the President got in his way, I think we would all be speaking Chinese.

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

There is a vast difference between arresting someone and the outcome of a court martial. I have not advocated that General Pace "court martial" Bush. Nor could he. I have suggested that he relieve him of his command - which would automatically trigger a court martial. At which Bush's status would be decided. So your analogy is moot.
==========­==========­=========

[mommadona]

Well, to start sorting it alllll out after bubbleboy returns to his ranchette with Barney:

I BELIEVE IT IS NOW TIME TO DEMAND AND SCHEDULE THE SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

We have GOT to get this little problem of hubris and 'reinterpretation' by the Whiggy ones settled once and for all, so U.S. can move forward.

It's the right thing to do.
Our kids would appreciate tremedously.

On July 26, 1787, after two months of fierce debate over the structure and powers of a new federal government, the Constitutional Convention was ready to commit its resolutions to writing. Appointing a "committee of detail" to draft a written constitution, the Convention adjourned until August 6.

To prepare themselves, the committee first studied the Convention's resolutions, state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and other applicable reports and documents. Then, Edmund Randolph of Virginia wrote out a rough draft of a constitution, which the committee then discussed. James Wilson revised Randolph's draft, the committee reviewed it, and a clean copy was sent to prominent Philadelphia printers John Dunlap and David Claypoole. The Convention told them to print just enough copies for use by the delegates; the draft was to be kept secret to avoid controversy.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/constit.html

[BornSkeptic]

OK, let's do it! And who will the second constitution's authors be?? What brilliant states-people should be assigned this noble task, and by whom???

I think the founders got it right the first time. Unfortunately, the congress has failed miserably in its constitutional duties. The press are the propaganda wing of the corporatized government, and the average voter is ignorant of history and incapable of critical thought.

[Scepticus]

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but this article is misguided.

The President of the United States does not hold a military office -- hence the term, "civilian control" of the armed forces.

Pace has no more authority to "arrest" the President of the United States than he has to re-write the rules of baseball.

One of the constitutionally mandated duties/authorities of the civilian office of the presidency (Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States) is that "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." The President is commander in chief because he holds the civilian office of President, not because he is a military officer.

Pace has enough to worry about within his actual sphere of authority and responsibility -- urge him to speak out forcefully in support of his views on the counter productive use of the armed forces in the Middle East. Don't distract him with requests to do what he very, very clearly cannot do and would probably (and probably rightly) be shot by the Secret Service if he tried to do.

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

I ask General Pace to do two things. One is to relieve the President of his command as Commander-In-Chief. The other is to place the President under military arrest. It is arguable as to the conflict between the Constitution and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. One of the important legal ramifications of My Lai was the obligation to relieve a senior officer of his/her command in exceptional circumstances. If General Pace was performing a military imperative in a peaceful, non-threatening manner and simply informed Mr. Bush that he was being relieved of his military command, there would be no justification for the Secret Service to act as you suggest. Whatever the ultimate consequence, the impact of such a courageous and noble act on behalf of his nation, would be significant.

==========­==========­==========­==

[RealTruePatriot]

Scepticus, your comment: "Pace has no more authority to "arrest" the President of the United States than he has to re-write the rules of baseball", is just plain wrong. Perhaps Pace hasn't the military authority, but as a member of "We the people" he most certainly does. Will that happen? No, because too many brainwashed & bamboozeled products of government education think they are being patriotic in blindly obeying unconstitutional acts of a madman & would prevent it, or at least whine & snivel in a blog.
Wasn't it Jefferson who penned that it's not just the right, but the DUTY of ALL Americans to overthrow their government every 20 years, just to keep it honest? This is not a matter of right vs. left or D's vs R's. It's a matter of the people forcing the leadership to obey the limited powers authorized by the Constitution. Sadly, the men of this country have been feminized & are too damn busy watching porn & NASCAR with a beer in one hand & a tv remote in the other to even know their duty.

[Doofus]

Probably if we were to crown him as our King,
we could get him to give up the CIC job. This
would have a better chance of success, what
with job prospects for the Bush twins as crown princesses.

It has been suggested that GWB be appointed
'Chairman of the Board', which could have the
same effect. So far, no dice.

But, sadly, under the Constitution, as we know,
if one is the President, one is also the
Commander in Chief. The roles are inseparable.