Lightwizard wrote:ralpheb is correct -- an officer cannot do it while active in the service, especially against the Commander in Chief. Even if he is the epitome of the Peter Principal.
I still think there isn't anything (besides perhaps pressure them into early retirement) that can legally be done, unless the officers are blatantly insubordinate, as in contemptuous:
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
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 don't think that they are in real danger of being treated as criminals unless they are insubordinate, or give up state secrets, or demonstrably endanger troops. I still think the only thing keeping these generals from speaking up when they are active
isn't fear of punishment as much as fear of losing status and standing. The climate is so volatile that the Army wouldn't dare court martial a general for speaking his mind right now. They do not want that kind of negative PR focused on them. But - and this is how the game gets played - that general would get a crapload of pressure, and would get rendered ineffective, and would lose his power and standing. that's exactly what happened to General Shinseki for firmly opposing the status quo - forced retirement. I think
that's what they're afraid of - not ending up in Leavenworth, or anything of that sort. I think they're afraid of losing their marketability, and other chickenshit concerns.
That's why I can only get so excited about them "coming forward" in a way that will aggrandize themselves, and not touch the status quo.
