#38875: — 09/05  at  03:43 PM
actually, it is true. as an officer or enlistee you do not get free speech against the chain of command.... and that includes the president. it is actually much the same for private business, most people contract away their freedom of speech in many contexts. luckily, in universities, our speech is pretty well protected comparitively, but lets not get too convinced that everyone has our privileges.

#38877: PZ Myers — 09/05  at  03:50 PM
Yes. The remarkable thing is how quickly this person was slapped down...within hours. You can tell what the Bush regime's priorities are.

#38879: Ali — 09/05  at  03:52 PM

Who the fuck was running the logistics here, and did we check to make sure they'd at least graduated kindergarten before hiring them? Things only started to work when the Army took over (thank God for General Honore), and I'm sure they're going to need much more help before it's over. I'm a qualified officer in the Army Engineer Corps. SEND ME, DAMN IT! I'm sitting here, making LJ entries, when I should be helping to save lives! I'm going insane, wanting to do something!

I think that was the most damning part of the whole letter. Do officers get court martialed for speaking their minds? Glad I never did the military thing. I'd be screwed.

#38881: — 09/05  at  03:59 PM
I initially read that 2LT as meaning "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" and got rather confused about how it might be relevant and then (by the time I reached the comma at the end of the clause) how it might have a job as an engineer. Which is when I noticed something must be wrong with my parsing because PZ tends not to make as little sense as that. Anyone fancy making a (bogus) argument from thermodynamics about some part of that anyway? Eg:

- Governments always tend towards disorder and incompetence.

- The levees were bound to fall down in a closed-minded system.

#38893: — 09/05  at  04:48 PM
PZ--

I'd like to pass this story on, but I want documentation of the initiation of court martial proceedings. (That is the most outrageous part of the story, and so the one it is most important to verify). Where can that be found? Is it maybe just in something she sent along to Gilliard? I don't find it in the comments, so maybe she sent it confidentially?

#38900: senoritafish — 09/05  at  05:07 PM
Don't know, as her original post (and most of her journal) has been made friends only, but her remaining post somewhat apologizes for the tone if not the content. She mentions nothing about a court martial.

I'd really have to go along with what she says there, too.

#38907: — 09/05  at  05:31 PM

You can die for this country, but you can't speak out against Emperor Bush.

Ah so the military should do what its told and not question orders. Now we know what happens when people question their superiors. What would of happened if soldiers said "No" when their officers told them to humiliate Iraqis?

And people wonder how come the soldiers did humilitate the iraqis.. They think its easy to say no..

#38908: — 09/05  at  05:35 PM
The prohibition against defamation of the civilian leadership by soldiers is there for a VERY good reason: it is one of many measures that can (and should) be taken to ensure that the armed services of the United States remain under the authority of our civilian leadership, as mandated by the Constitution.

#38916: — 09/05  at  06:22 PM
Now the post that explains why the angry letter in question was removed in missing as well.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/ and oops - the angry letter link is blacklisted? . . . .

I have been keeping a close eye on this one because of some things in the angry letter that, frankly, made me doubt its authenticity. Shortly after submitting a post to the comments site on the gilliard blog, a link to Michelle's livejournal was posted (see below) - she stands by her sentiment, but regrets using her rank, and mostly points out that all the people commenting would be a lot more useful if they actually DID something positive for Katrina victims. (Court marshal was not discussed.)

I was put to shame by her general comments. http://www.livejournal.com/users/mijan/ Now I wonder what happened to the post about the post, and to all the comments on Gilliard's site. Especially since after posting an apology for being one of those who picked apart her original post, I donated moneey to the Red Cross, and I was anxious to see if any others felt similarly.

I second Tad Brennan, and ask that anyone who runs across further documentation of all of this submits it to PZ, so that he can post it.

Trackback: Persecuting the critics Tracked on: Resonant Information (68.224.223.13) at 2005 09 05 17:37:08
A 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Corps of Engineers sent an e-mail criticizing Bush to Steve Gilliard's blog. Less than 24 hours later, she was court-martialed for it. This continues the tradition of the military going after any of its members who criticize

#38922: — 09/05  at  06:35 PM
#38908: Alex Merz — 09/05 at 05:35 PM
"The prohibition against defamation of the civilian leadership by soldiers is there for a VERY good reason: it is one of many measures that can (and should) be taken to ensure that the armed services of the United States remain under the authority of our civilian leadership, as mandated by the Constitution."

I understand, and endorse, this line of thought. Civilian control of the military is one of the things that (still) separates us from the banana republics.

But if the idea is that the military should not get involved in politics, then I think it has got to apply to *support* as well as *criticism*. Military people should not be allowed to express their *admiration* for elected officials, their *respect* for particular administrations or regimes, and so on. Because doing so has political consequences that are just as real as the consequences of criticism are.

I mean, the goal is for the military just to have no opinion about politics, right? Sure, as private citizens they have a vote just as much as anybody else. But in uniform, they aren't Democrats or Republicans, not Bush-haters or Bush-lovers. That is a stance I understand and agree with.

Unfortunately, this administration (and, to be fair, many previous administrations), have been willing to prostitute the independence of the uniformed services when they could make it appear like *support* for currently elected officials. But then they come down like a ton of bricks when it looks like *criticism* of elected officials.

That double standard *cannot* be defended by appeal to the notion of civilian control of the military. If the military cannot criticize elected officials, then the military should not be used as backdrops and cheering sections for elected officials' speeches.

Shorter: that officer had just as much right to voice her criticisms as Bush did to pull his "Mission Accomplished" stunt. If her criticism was a violation of the civilian control principle, so was his mis-appropriation of military funds to turn a carrier into a political pep rally. Neutral means *no* opinion; it does not mean using the troops to *advance* the politics of party A, and then shutting them down when they *oppose* the politics of party A. That ain't neutral at all; that's just propaganda masquerading as principle.

#38925: — 09/05  at  06:37 PM
Actually, there are times it is lawful for military personnel to disobey orders, specifically 'unlawful orders'.

I am not a military law expert (so this should should be taken with a grain of salt), but the military are only required to obey lawful orders. As an example, a commanding officer cannot order anyone to commit perjury.

#38940: — 09/05  at  08:02 PM
As a former member of a non-US military, I wish to add that exactly the same thing would happen to anyone in any other NATO army who voiced their opinion with their rank attached.

BTW, while serving I got unofficially reprimanded (i.e., dressed down big time, but no practical consequence whatsoever) for explaining to my men the meaning of (and the historical reasons for) the article of our Constitution where compulsory military service was established. And that was a mandatory Civics lesson, mind you! Only, my CO happened to disagree with that article of the Constitution...

#38946: John M. Price — 09/05  at  08:29 PM
Actually, no, this officer had no rights in this area. This is made clear at the outset. It is part of being in the military.

Additionally, and especially with regard to political activities, even government officers and employees, not the elected officials, though, are restricted in some fashion.

It is what it is. There would be no way around initiating at least an article 32 for this email, most especially since the criticism was of the Commander in Chief. Her CO would be considered derelict in maintain good order and discipline if they did not initiate the procedings.

#38948: — 09/05  at  08:44 PM
From the "Airman's Guide" 6th ed., but also applies to all the armed forces:

Public Statements

AFI 35-101, Public Affairs Polices and Procedures, provides policy for making public statements on offical Air Force matters. It stipulates that commanders (or their authorized public affairs representatives) are the appropriate approval authorities for public statements. The goal of this practice is to reduce the risk of the release of statements that do not reflect Air Force policy or that, if taken out of context, could be misleading to the public. Personnel who make releases should make certain that the information is accurate, prompt, and factual. It should be presented simply, honestly, and professionally. Comments should be confined to their particular area of expertise. Hypothetical and speculative comments should be avoided.

#38960: ekzept — 09/05  at  09:42 PM

But if the idea is that the military should not get involved in politics, then I think it has got to apply to *support* as well as *criticism*. Military people should not be allowed to express their *admiration* for elected officials, their *respect* for particular administrations or regimes, and so on. Because doing so has political consequences that are just as real as the consequences of criticism are.

very much agree with that! how many times do you find photo-ops with Bush surrounded by military, implying they are 100% behind him.

there are other things given up when joining military, too, such as the soldier's right and the right of their family to bring suit against government or any of its contractors.

it's a fine point and i imagine the same applies, but i guess a conscript is subject to exactly the same limitations.

the aerospace and military corporations do not suffer rebels, whistleblowers, or dissenters. i mean, there are whistleblowers who have survived, but to do so, they themselves need to cross bounds of integrity. adherence to those is ruthlessly exploited by people in the business who don't have them. if you have a position which is unpopular with an administration or management and have the qualifications and evidence to back it up, expect to be marginalized. both corporate aerospace and military make liberal use of military classification and secrecy to hide defects and their own incompetence, under some ridiculously extended notion that revealing these will "do damage to the security of the United States".

corporations in the business wave the flag endlessly, using it in their advertisements, but in the back rooms over contracts, they will put profit over soldiers lives constantly, and do everything they can to interpret technical specifications strictly, not giving government, soldier, or airman anything additional that they think they can get additional monies for.

#38961: — 09/05  at  09:42 PM

Ah so the military should do what its told and not question orders.

Of course not!

I think we all need to sit down and (re-)watch the classic film "A Few Good Men."

#38962: ekzept — 09/05  at  09:52 PM
and, speaking of films, the closeness between portrait and practice of the movie Deal of the Century is scary. when i first saw that, working as i did for such a company, i recommended that it be mandatory viewing for any new hire. they didn't laugh.

Deal also makes fun of engineers and their penchant for pursuing technology with abandon, even abandoning self-awareness and common sense. deservedly so.

of course, if you really want to read about an engineering system gone bad, seriously consider the final report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board or the talk about it by Professor Sheila Widnall. Widnall is no ivory tower purist. She herself was Secretary of the Air Force once.

#38963: — 09/05  at  09:52 PM
Just to give a brief, but incomplete, comparison of military and civilian rights and duties, compiled from the “Air Force Officer’s Guide” 34th edition:

Comparison with Citizen’s Rights

As a service member:

1. Freedom of worship is unchanged.

2. Freedom of speech and press is altered slightly by duty to maintain respect toward the President, Vice President, Congress, and other officials.

3. Right to assemble peaceably and to petition government is subjected to maintenance of good order and military discipline; must not go beyond “petition” stage.

4. Right to keep and bear arms is unchanged within the United States, although a service member may need specific permission to keep personal weapons in government quarters, and they will probably have to be registered with the base’s security force.

5. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure of person and property is applied by executive order.

6. Right to vote secretly in national and local elections is unchanged – military authorities required to facilitate absentee voting.

7. Freedom to make contracts, start and manage businesses, etc., has some limitations – must not do business with government, reflect discredit on the uniform, interfere with duties, or use military titles (other than in authorship).

Comparison with Citizen’s Duties

As a service member:

1. To take part in civic affairs is modified – duty and right to vote remains; may express private opinion informally.

2. To serve on a jury is modified – may be exempted from jury duty; subject to appointment on court-marshal.

3. To respect and obey laws; to assist public officials in preventing crime and assist courts by giving evidence is unchanged – sometimes officially assigned to assist public officials.

4. To pay taxes is modified – may be exempted by statute from certain taxes of state where stationed, if not a legal resident of that state.

#38964: ekzept — 09/05  at  09:56 PM
in this regard, i've sometimes wondered how much heat scientists working for (e.g.) NOAA get for pursuing and speaking on climate change and other matters. i believe there was one case when funding and permission to attend a conference for someone doing work on some biomedical thing using a government grant was cut, but i don't recall the details.

#38965: ekzept — 09/05  at  09:58 PM
basically, i would never recommend anyone with any mathematical or scientific talent to join-up for the reasons documented here. with administrations like BushCo's being more prevalent, i'd say the same for joining government service. that the military and government then don't have access to this kind of skill, knowledge, and talent is just tough.

#38968: Alon Levy — 09/05  at  10:08 PM
Well, it is things like this that make me think, I don't care how underpaid academics are, at least they don't have to pretend they like incompetent governments (though they do have to pretend they like incompetent university administrations).

#38972: — 09/05  at  10:25 PM
Here's some interesting news in biology yesterday that some may have missed:

Embryonic stem cells appear to change as they replicate - Study casts doubt on long-term safety of existing lines

http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/sep05/353350.asp

One of the central tenets of stem cell biology has been shaken.

An international team of researchers has discovered that human embryonic stem cells do not indefinitely self-renew without modification. Instead, they appear to accumulate changes in their genetic material over time.

This finding means that existing lines may be unsuitable for human therapeutic purposes, and it may also undermine their value in basic research. The research is described in the Sept. 4 online edition of Nature Genetics.

"This is an extremely important and troublesome discovery," said Robert Lanza, a stem cell biologist with Advanced Cell Technology, a biotech company in Worcester, Mass., who was not involved in the research. He added that it "raises some serious questions about the lines that are available."

#38973: ekzept — 09/05  at  10:39 PM
i am listening to the Widnall lecture again. i wonder what the Corp of Engineers would say to Widnall's comment, there, obviously in the context of the Columbia accident, that

...questions about the responsibility of engineers to treat system level issues with the same disciplinary respect and expertise that they treat components. The Columbia accident is perhaps an extreme example of an organizational systems failure, but I believe that general lessons can be drawn. Engineers and their programs are embedded in organizational structures. These structures control the success or failures of the program. In dealing with high risk technologies, the characteristics of these organizations determine the risk to individuals and society from these technologies. Engineers cannot sit quietly within these organizations, but have an ethical responsibility to apply their engineering training to uncover operating defects in these organizations as well as the systems they are developing and operating that can lead to system failures.

#38977: ekzept — 09/05  at  11:16 PM
i think the Army Corps of Engineers should be independent of FEMA or any other organization, reporting directly to Congress. that would be a nice change as a result of this catastrophe.