|
Nora Skinker (Morton)
At the risk of becoming part of a SNL skit, and hearing 'Nori, you ignorant slut', here's my take on Jack's legally elaborate article: first off, the various cited statutes are far more factual than the somewhat slanted editorializing of Mr. Vladeck (well-known to WaPo readers). True, we can all agree that Trump is not going to be "careful about his public comments", nor is he interested in "established norms". In speaking to your confusion about why he does it, Jack, I can only say that I believe it is because he is a Populist and knows his opinions resonate with a hungry and dissatisfied public-at-large. That said, I truly believe that HE believes what he says is true, though he doesn't pretend to be precise or care much about it either. It's called appealing to emotion. It is the essence of what led him to 1600, in the first place. Also, I believe he has been WELL-advised but has chosen to be his brutal, blunt, blustery self, come what may. But i digress.
Back to the article: the first paragraph is mostly (not totally) subjective, i.e, who is to say whether Trump actually incited violence at a rally during the 2016 campaign, any more than HRC did the same in calling half the population of the country 'implorables"? Could the only real difference be that there were 'rebel-rousing' rally attendees at the Trump functions (some of which, btw, were rumored to be paid participants, representing ANTIFA & BLM groups) and there were few (if any) in attendance at the Clinton campaign rallies? The second paragraph is as subjective as the first: the rants of name-calling summon the question: how do we know for sure that Bergdahl wasn't a bum, a traitor, yes - even a 'son of a bitch'? Trump was echoing the sentiments evident among Bergdahl's appalled fellow soldiers who had outlined publicly the horrible circumstances of the desertion, the search, the dangers, the families, and worst of all, the dead and maimed victims of Bergdahl's decision to run away. Third paragraph: IOW, who is to say the aforementioned Trump claims were 'materially false'? Okay, even if they aren't true, and they DO constitute UCI, then are we to assume that no President can voice an opinion about a military court-martial (or any other military case) again? Additionally, should it only be allowed in a campaign? If so, can (& should) campaign rhetoric later be used against him or her? if so, pass laws to that effect. For, apparently now it is a gray area. And perhaps this case will be a catalyst to once and for all answering that question - particularly since the author admits there have been many ex-Presidents who have been in "hot water" in this way. Troubling is the statement that "the mortal enemy of military justice" is UCI. If so, isn't that enough to warrant distinct definitions of what truly that is? But, more than WHAT it is, HOW does it manifest? Should we also take away the right of those fellow soldiers to tell their story before a court-martial is decided? Should they have rights that a President doesn't have? Should any leakers of a President's opinion on a military court case, be prosecuted too? So many parameters remain unclear..at least for now.
Vladeck cites "If allowed in practice, UCI will have a corroding effect that could prove deadly to the confidence members of the Armed Forces and the public have in the military justice system." HMM. "If allowed in practice" - if Trump's rhetoric alone is going to have such dire consequences, then should he be impeached for that? Vladeck seems to welcome any opportunity to draw attention to Trump's fiery rhetoric: i.e. Trump's declaration that Bergdahl is responsible for the death of servicemembers. Frankly, I am having a hard time trying to find fault or false info. with that: reminds me of the argument that the illegal immigrant in SF who killed Kate Steinle is not responsible because he didn't mean to do it. He was there! If he weren't, it wouldn't have happened. If Berdahl were there, those servicemen would not have perished, either! Like Vladeck's argument that UCI warrants broader prohibition, and I DO empathize with his frustration, influence WILL be there, no matter what (in reaching a decision) and loss of confidence WILL be there no matter what (in whatever the decision is). The reality for me is that the proposed Presidential response should not be part and parcel of the resolution. Ever. When the only answer is that 'no response can be legally emitted from a President', (to me) that conveys that no confidence resides in the military people who sit in judgement. Shouldn't their abilities to overlook ALL outside influences be part of their job descriptions?
As a cynic, always looking for the role that politics plays, I must suspect to a certain extent, that the Bergdahl decision rested at least somewhat on politics and possible exonerations: Susan Rice's public statements on all the Sunday talk shows, lauding Bergdahl; a Rose Garden whoopla with President Obama leading an emotional display of parental anguish; not to mention the public outcry of Obama's decision to trade Bergdahl for several known radical terrorists and finally and (I believe) most damaging to the military itself, is the very real fact that Bergdahl, in 2006 and before enlisting in the army in 2008, entered the Coast Guard but was discharged after a mere 26 days for psychological reasons. Like that illegal SF immigrant with a bad history, he should never have been there.
|
