Appears mainstream media has run with the idea that Gen. McChrystal’s now infamous comments about the President and other senior members of the administration may violate  Art. 88, UCMJ, Contemptuous words, see Washington Times coverage here and AP here.  After wondering about the same thing yesterday, I read this Army Lawyer article that convinced me that discussion is better left to the political pundits.  While it appears arguable that some of McChrystal’s more pointed comments are at least in the outer ring of potentially contemptuous words, most probably lie outside the Article’s prohibitions.  Now, the statements of other members of Gen. McChrystal’s staff in the Rolling Stone article (here), well those are probably much closer to the heartland of contemptuous.  See e.g. the “”Biden? . . . Did you say: Bite Me?” comment.

11 Responses to “Gen. McChrystal’s Comments and Art. 88, UCMJ”

  1. MJW1 says:

    Who cares, I say congrats to CDR (sel) Fulton

  2. Anonymous says:

    Probably not Article 88 for GEN McC, but I think Article 133, conduct unbecoming. Or maybe Article 88 as and aider and abettor? it seemed like he certainly encouraged the banter by the others.

    Of course, if LTC Lakin is watching, he’d encourage this kind of conduct. he’ll probably be back in the media saying McCrystal isn’t really fired, because President Obama really isn’t the President, and therefore had no authority to fire him (or accept his resignation–same thing).

  3. Anonymous says:

    Article 88 doesn’t cover all the people that were the subject of the disparaging remarks–doesn’t include the Ambassador, foreign ministers, etc. But it still doesn’t look good. What was GEN McChrystal thinking?

  4. Sanson says:

    109 Harv. L. Rev. 458

  5. Anonymous says:

    If Lakin had been charged with a violation of Article 88, then at least I could see how the President’s birth certificate might arguably be relevant.

  6. Anon says:

    Early retirement? Or most likely, not thinking due to sleep deprivation.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Apparently when you run 7 miles a day, eat once a day, and sleep 4 hours a day…

    You get a little punch drunk.

  8. John O'Connor says:

    But if McChrystal wasn’t really dfired, he wasn’t really hired either. He’s just been AWOL from whatever billet he filled as of January 19, 2009.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I do not approve in any way of what General McChrystal did, in fact, the news made me genuinely sad. However, why aren’t people talking about how this Hastings guy writes like a total D-Bag?

  10. soonergrunt says:

    Yeah. His biases and lack of understanding just shined right through that article. However, you’re essentially asking the equivalent of why the firemen who survived 9/11 weren’t wearing ties with their uniforms.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Not knowing what a total d-bag writes like, I can only say that the article is well written. It describes vividly an atmosphers many of us have witnessed, but it’s from his perspective. He’s someone that doesn’t live that life every day, so it may be written in a manner with which you’re not too familiar. Regardless, at the end of the day, the general knew he was with this particular “d-bag” when he and his staff made those comments in their “down time” in France.