Lieutenant Colonel Vindman reportedly stated during closed-door testimony before a congressional committee that he was "concerned" or "disturbed" by the content of President Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president. To hold such an opinion is his right, to voice it is beyond presumptuousness and militarily inappropriate, possibly even a violation of the Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel from the U.S. Army after many years of active service having risen through the enlisted ranks. I can say without a doubt that to verbally disagree with the Commander and Chief of the United States Armed Forces on matters pertaining to foreign policy, a presidential prerogative in accordance with the nation's constitution, would in my time have resulted in the perpetrator facing a General Courts-Martial. Not sure, however, that expressing an opinion that a president was wrong would be found by the court to be "contemptuous". I guess an implication of contemptuousness could be argued successfully.
For the sake of the uniform and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's years of honorable service, I only hope that the transcript of his testimony shows that he was not presuming to question the rightness of the President's private discussion with a foreign leader. For to do so would be to express a lack of respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment