Marines Pay Price for `Free' Speech

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Dec 14, 1998 | by Woody West

Has America become a nation of "Archys" -- as in "Archy and Mehitabel," the cockroach poet and his feckless feline friend?

As geezers fondly remember, Archy would emerge in the office of newspaper columnist Don Marquis at night and write essays about life and love from the underside -- the cockroach huffing himself painfully from the frame of the typewriter onto one key at a time (all were in lower case because Archy could not manage the shift key).

The constant complaint of Archy was "expression is the need of my soul."

Well, expression seems to have become the imperative of American souls. Indeed, we can't seem to keep our mouths shut. Reticence is regarded as dysfunctional. Worse, spelling and grammar are widely disdained to permit the young to "express" themselves without the inhibition of form.

A current fuss suggests that promiscuous expression is pandemic and, more ominously, the case involves the armed services.

Two military officers -- both Marines, as it happens, one a serving officer, the other a reservist -- spoke out publicly and tartly recently about the commander in chief, William Jefferson Clinton. A great many citizens have been vociferous, pro and con, about the president. But it is both tradition and law that members of the armed forces publicly button their lips about civilian leadership.

The tradition goes to our genesis, based on the despotic potential of standing armies that history often and unhappily has witnessed. The tradition predicates a covenant of trust between the military and civilian society to avoid a politicized army.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits those in the armed forces from making disparaging remarks about the commander in chief, exposing those who make such remarks to charges of insubordination. It is a useful proviso, since the best of us can trip over tradition when passion is lava, hot and flowing.

The cases of the two Marines are different, slightly. Maj. Shane Sellers, the serving officer, was given a "letter of caution" -- a mild form of punishment -- for calling Clinton an "adulterous liar" in an article in Navy Times, an independent weekly. (Adultery is a criminal offense under military law if it jeopardizes discipline and good order; conviction can result in dishonorable discharge.)

The second Marine, Reserve Maj. Daniel Rabil, was as barbed in his appraisal. He described the president in an op-ed article in the Washington Times as a "lying draft dodger" and a "moral coward" urging that Clinton be removed from office.

The accuracy of the allegations is not the point. Both Marines were guilty of wretched judgment. Although Sellers, the serving officer, was only cautioned, it is unlikely he'll ever pin on the silver oak leaves of a light colonel. Rabil probably will be dealt with gingerly since he wrote on "civilian time" and presumably was not then under UCMJ jurisdiction, though he identified himself as a reservist.

As an indication of the misunderstanding that is corroding the civil and military covenant, more than a dozen letters to the editor in the Washington Times vigorously applauded Rabil's salvo. Even among former officers, the distinction between civilian and military cultures seems severely blurred: A retired Army colonel endorsed Rabil for "exercising his constitutional right of free speech." Good heavens! Here is a career officer who ignores or is indifferent to the fact that a soldier voluntarily curtails aspects of constitutional rights when he takes the oath.

At the same time, the U.S. military ensures that members retain their role in the political life of the nation. Access to the ballot box is carefully ensured, and any trooper can write his congressmen without reprisal -- and they do. (To slide into anecdotal mode, decades ago a buck sergeant at the Marine barracks in Washington figured out how to get "special liberty" most any time. To justify the request, he would write, "To see my congressman." The first sergeant, tetchy as first sergeants are, would seethe but never challenge.)

In contrast to the cheers for the two majors, a Navy lieutenant commander, Bryan McGrath, was eloquent about members of the armed forces publicly condemning civilian leaders. "What if such conduct were to become the norm?" he asked in a Washington Times article. "What if the Congress decides not to impeach the president? What would Rabil have us do then -- ignore both the Congress and the executive because neither would uphold his personal political values?"

Juntas and anarchy have been the historic answer elsewhere, past and present, the naval officer reminds us. Dangerous trend -- especially since the two majors appear to have a tide of support for their egregious itch.

A retired soldier can, of course, shout to heart's content. For a serving officer, however, if the itch to express himself politically is irresistible, the honorable alternative is to resign -- and then sound off.

By Woody West

Associate Editor