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.
"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
MILITARY DECORATIONS & HONORS AWARDED TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSHerrrr... there aren't any
.
Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Um ... the Article 134 you quote says, "shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-mart
To quote military.c
==========MARTIN RESPONDS==
You are 100% correct. Well-spotted. I'm so used to Bush over-riding his Generals that the reference to "a general" leaped out at me. I am adjusting my letter to General Pace accordingly.
Of course this does not in any way lessen General Pace's authority to act. That particular phrase was not the cornerstone of my case. Merely an adjunct. The combination of Articles 7, 133 and 134 provide the authority for General Pace to save his nation.
==========
Civilian leadership will (almost) always "bring
discredit upon the armed forces", so it wouldn't really be that easy. Unless Bush was flagrantly insane; not his regular delusional sociopath insane, but to the point where Cheney relieving Bush and assuming civilian presidential powers actually starts sounding good.
I'd settle for a firm statement that Pace would refuse illegal/un
The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway.
A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup.
Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992.
These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community.
His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.
It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author
http://www
I doubt UCMJ trumps the constitution, which clearly gives any president the powers of commander-in-cheif, and allows no room for splitting presidential powers in such a manner as you suggest.
And I doubt if Bush would be considered a "commissioned officer", so in all likelihood he will not be subject to the UCMJ regulations you quoted.
And your plan does not address who would be commander-in-chief once Bush was court-martialed. Another General? Are you advocating a de facto military coup?
Or are you suggesting we hand the keys to the military over to Dick Cheney, who would be next in line for the commander-in-chief duties?
========MARTIN RESPONDS=========
As my post says - I am absolutely not advocating a de facto military coup. I am simply advising General Pace that he should relieve President Bush of his command of the military - pending a court martial.
It is an interesting question as to who would then become Commander-In-Chief. I'm not sure that it would be the Vice President. But if it was - the same course of action could be taken if the Vice President acted with "Conduct Unbecoming"
==========
Responding to Martin's response..
Martin, you can't credibly say that you're "not advocating a de facto military coup" when you are advocating that very thing in your post. You are asking a general--a general appointed by the commander-in-chief mind you--to unseat his civilian superior, and in that bargain, you've just put the U.S. Constitution right on its ear. The UCMJ doesn't trump the Constitution, it does not apply to elected civilian commanders, and there is no proviso in the Constitution for partial removal of duties. You have impeachment and total removal from office, and that's the only way you can stop a president. There are no partials here.
Also, if Bush listens to Peter Pace, that means he is not listening to General Petraeus. By your own "logic", this means that Petraeus (in his view) has cause to remove Bush from office because he would be shirking his duties as C-in-C.Ple
=========MARTIN RESPONDS==========
I utterly reject the use of any force or illegal action of any kind and specifically reject and condemn any calls for it. I do call on General Pace to speak his conscience and to do his ethical, moral duty to his forces and to his nation. Sometimes the right words from a man of courage have a moral impact that resonates.
==========
General Pace, after his departure from his position, has, in effect, the weight of his past to add his voice to the rest of our voices: IMPEACH THIS MAN after impeaching Cheney before our country is virtually distroyed. We have had already national disaster from his preemptive war, costing us countmore lives and billions of dollars, gone, FOR NOTHING!
General Pace, obviously, is not authorized under the Constitution to do what you suggest that he do.
Our only recourse is to impeach him.
True, our troops in Iraq stand more than just harm's way, when he does his preemptory strike on Iran. The Israeli Idiots who are pushing for this course, through AIPAC, don't give a damn about the rest of us here. And the poolitical whores in Congress who knee-jerkingly push for a cessation of objection to what has occurred, and to stand up to this madness, have been irretrievably bought off.
What will happen when the next trigger is pulled?
1. Tel Aviv will be destroyed. (Jerusalem will not be touched, but small comfort that is.
2. American troops in Iraq will suffer extremely greater losses.
3. Armageddon will finally be upon us, because the domino effect will be set in motion.
All this got started with Bush and Sharon making decisions to this effect for the invasion of Iraq, with the background of AIPAC's legionnaires, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al., pushing, along with Rumsfeld, and, above all, Cheney.
But impeachment proceedings, realistically speaking, cannot be initiated, as long as AIPAC has a grip on the Senate and House.
What is there left to do in this vicious circle of our country in the maelstrom.
Sir:
To put it bluntly, you're out of your mind. The last thing that we ever want our military doing, is becoming some kind of Praetorian Guard that develops the habit of making and breakng Caesars. Once you lose a Republic, you don't get it back.
Pace doesn't have control of any troops in any case. As Chairman, he's advisory only. The Chain of command goes from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the various commanders of the various unified or specified commands.
The system is set up specifically to make a coup impossible. The only person in an actual position to be able to carry one off, is the President himself. And since he's already President, it's doubtful that he's going to be formenting a coup.
There is a procedure for relieving a President if he's become incapacitated, but it would not be usable in this instance.
In short, you're left with trying to convince Congress that he should be impeached and then tried by the Senate.
Personally, I'd dearly love to see him impeached, and have his henchmen like Gonzalez turned out with him, but General Pace is in no more position to do anything than either you or I, and the damage that would be done to Constitutional Government if he could would well outweigh what Bush has wrought.
In a real sense, you do a disservice to everybody because the exercise in sophistry that you've advanced as what appears to be a serious proposal for a course of action, does little more than trivialize the issue.
In the end, I think that things are getting a little weird. First there's the proposal that got briefly advanced on the Family Security Matters site, where it was proposed that Bush should give up the Presidency and "Save civilisation" by becoming an outright dictator, and now I see you're suggestion that the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, forment a coup!
To put it mildly, both of you are nuts!
Here here. It doesn't matter that I don't like Bush. I never voted for ANY member of the military. They aren't elected. And they are meant to follow the orders of civilians. Just splitting hairs and saying it's not a coup just a removal of his military power does not justify this. The military must be subservient to the civilian commanders. At all times.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
