Military Officers Forbidden to Criticize Al Gore

Monday, December 4, 2000

For United States military men and women serving far from home, the Democrats' apparent efforts to have many of Florida's overseas military ballots rejected or discounted has been a slap in the face. "They ask us to be in harm's way. And if we're out there doing our part, why shouldn't our vote count back here?" said U.S. Army Sgt. Raymond Jenkins.

But as outraged as Jenkins and his colleagues may be at having their votes discounted, they have to keep their opinions to themselves. The right to free speech and to openly criticize the government without fear of retribution that Americans hold so dear does not extend to military personnel. In the military, free speech can sometimes be a crime.

According to Article 88 of the military code of justice, "any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, vice president ... governor or legislature shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Armed forces officers upset over the ballot situation were given a swift refresher course in military law last week when their superiors became concerned about the number and tone of public comments service people were making about the disputed election. Military lawyers were dispatched to remind the troops that it is illegal for them to criticize Vice President Al Gore.

As word got around that military officers were expressing their "outrage" and "disgust" at Al Gore and saying they felt they had been "ripped off" by the vice president, Army lawyers issued this directive:

"There is a distinction between using words to reflect a personal political opinion as opposed to using words that indicate scorn or contempt towards officials. The time may be appropriate to remind officers to avoid contemptuous language in our speech and e-mail correspondence."

Seven years ago, Air Force Major Gen. Harold Campbell was forced to resign after he called President Clinton a "gay-loving, draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizing" politician.

Since violating Article 88 can result in a year in prison and the end of a military career, the question of what constitutes "contemptuous" speech and what is protected political opinion is one many officers are answering by staying quiet and hoping their votes will speak for themselves.

"At this point, the atmosphere is so tense it is almost impossible to get anyone to say anything for attribution or on the record," said Tom Donnelly, a military-policy expert with the Project for the New American Century, a conservative foreign-policy think tank.

"'Better off for everyone to keep your mouth shut' is the attitude of many officers," Donnelly added.

Fortunately, military officers have a powerful voice speaking for them. Former Joints Chief of Staff Chairman Gen. Colin Powell has had no qualms in voicing what many military voters have been feeling — that their ballots were unfairly disqualified.

"All I know is that seventy-five percent of the youngsters from that county who are serving far away from home — their ballots are being cast aside," Powell said.

Meanwhile, the ballot battle in Florida rages on, with Democrats vehemently denying Powell's charges.

"To state that Al Gore systematically tried to stop military men and women from voting is literally the worst ... without factual basis of anything that I've heard in my life," said Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Fla.

Unfortunately, Donnelly said, the perception that the vice president tried to prevent military votes from counting in the election lingers among many military personnel.

Fox News' William La Jeunesse contributed to this report.

Military Officers Forbidden to Criticize Al Gore

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 05, 2000

Answers

Hmmm... wonder how the higher ups feel about the spouses of the .mil guys/gals speaking up?

Maybe via the spouses their voices can be made to be heard loud and clear. But then again, if the spouses stir the pot, the more it will stink. It all rolls downhill and we know that the men and women of the service are viewed by this administration as being on the very bottom of the hill.

Never mind, now back to your normal afternoon.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), December 05, 2000.

This is nothing new. You give up certain rights when you put on a uniform, including some of your first amendment rights. During the Gulf, we were forbidden to talk to the media if we were in uniform. We could talk to them in our civs, but only if we presented ourselves as John Q. Citizen, not Spec. John Q. Citizen.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 05, 2000.

Tarzan,

The jest that I'm getting from my husband, is that they don't want them to even speak out as John Q. Citizen. They want, basically, for the .mil to keep their mouths shut.

Then again, before this whole mess started, I was rather surprised to see how they sometimes had the pictures of the CIC and the VCIC decorated. I might just have to stroll into the building again to see how they look now. LOL!

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), December 05, 2000.

Tar, that's right, you do give up some rights when you put on the uniform (and you wear the uniform 24 hours per day). Besides the freedom on speech against the gov, one can't sue a military doctor for malpractice. That's the way it goes.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 05, 2000.

True, they cannot "offically" riot and parade. But one might be surprised by the " Gallant". who stand up, for what they believe and trust.

-- You Go! Boyfriend and Girlfriend (whilein@uniform.com), December 05, 2000.

"You give up certain rights when you put on a uniform, including some of your first amendment rights."

Apparently you also give up your right to vote for president if you vote for the Republican candidate.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), December 05, 2000.

Butt Nuggett-

According to Florida law, an absentee ballot can't be counted if it's not postmarked. It also can't be counted if it's unsigned by the voter. I daresay that men and women in uniform would be completely opposed to having special rules which only apply to their votes. Special rules for the military goes against our foundation of equality.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 06, 2000.

butt, LOL

Tar, not having a postmark is not a fault of the overseas military voter.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 06, 2000.

Tarzan I think you need to inform the Gore team of Florida law since they seem to think they are above it.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 06, 2000.

Maria-

This begs the question, "How did those ballots get delivered without postmarks?". It is against federal law for mail to be delivered without a postmark. Occasionally, pieces of mail do get missed, but we're talking a couple of thousands of pieces of mail here. Moreover, many of the ballots that weren't postmarked are also ballots that weren't signed. Now tell me, since these ballots lack signatures and postmarks, exactly how we know these ballots even came from oversease military members, as opposed to other absentee voters?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 06, 2000.

"How did those ballots get delivered without postmarks?" Was it the stork? Fact is Tar, many don't have postmark from overseas, they go directly from military post to military plane to the US. If they don't have signatures, they shouldn't be counted.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 06, 2000.

Fact is Tar, many don't have postmark from overseas, they go directly from military post to military plane to the US.

This isn't true, Maria. Sorry.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 07, 2000.