Punishing McChrystal
Jun 23, 2010
5 Comments
President Obama and General McChrystalThe topic of war is not one lawyers are generally qualified to address. To be sure, there are rules of engagement and principles of national relations that can properly be considered by lawyers. And once in a while, the Supreme Court hands down an opinion addressing the the president’s war-making power. But the topic of war is more of a political question than a legal debate.
When it comes to punishment, though, lawyers may claim their rightful province. Deterrence, retribution, perhaps even justice — these are things we learn to consider from the start. And “contempt” and “rehabilitation,” well, those too are something we lawyers know more than a little about.
In the current debate over General Stanley A. McChrystal, it is worth asking what, if anything, McChrystal is guilty of and how, if at all, he should be punished for his conduct. On the first issue, it seems clear that McChrystal was recklessly, if not willfully, contemptuous of…someone. But who that person is makes a big difference. See, for example, the “Contempt for Officials” crime:
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 Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
10 U.S.C. 888.
On the second issue, that of punishment, the statute leaves it basically up for grabs what the proper punishment should be. By most accounts McChystal is a successful, perhaps even brilliant, general. And, after all, generals have really only one goal: to win wars, not to massage emotions. Generals engage in wars in which people die, not wars in which the greatest casualty is hurt feelings. Or so the argument goes. It may be that the crime of which McChrystal is guilty may be a crime not of insubordination, but of disrespect; not one which will jeopardize an entire mission, but one which will impair his ability to effectively lead by example.
Eagleionline Question(s) of the Day: Did McChrystal commit any crime? Which one? And if so, how should he be punished? Can McChrystal be rehabilitated?
Who posted this article?
Turmoil in the ranks, oil (still) polluting the Gulf, and unemployment hovering near double-digits. "Change we can believe in" has been transformed from a slogan to a punchline. At least we have an unsustainable healthcare system (passed with Chicago-style tactics and fraudulent accounting tricks) to brighten our horizon. Obama’s Afghanistan policy (besides being months delayed) sent mixed, and uncertain, messages to the troops and top brass, alike. While McChrystal’s timing and form is improper, his critique is spot-on. He deserves a parade, rather than a punishment.
This is a stupid question. Seeking criminal punishment for McChrystal would be political suicide and would send a terrible message to the troops, the American people, etc. McChrystal is guilty of being an idiot, and he, like any employee, can generally suffer consequences at the discretion of his boss for making stupid comments.
By all appearances from this article, it is a crime. Obama’s "punishment" however seems appropriate. The terrible message that was sent to the troops was that it might be okay to question a superior. Obama took care of that by replacing him with someone who knows that. We may not agree with Obama’s policies in Afghanistan, but that is what the democratic process is for. I want my military trained to follow orders and not question authority.
Spill would have happened no matter what and the war would have gone badly no matter what. Simpleton.
Couldn’t agree more with WTOA. I mean, we were getting along, no THRIVING under President Bush’s administration, and now we have this nitwit. McCain/Palin would be doing a MUCH better job leading this country. I mean, so what if Sarah Palin can’t name a single supreme court case or a newspaper she reads. It’s not like Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co is of any significance anyways! Long live the GOP!