Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  Opinion  >  Current Article

No Apology, No Peace

By   /   November 13, 2012  /   7 Comments

    Print       Email

It was Paul Cook who used the fact he was and is an Officer in the USMC as a attribute and qualification to being elected a Congressman. Cook used the apparent fact that he was a Reserve Colonel in the Marine Corps on every sign and in every single mailing to the voters. As such he must be held to a higher standard and by all that is moral and right must be held to the Code of Conduct for Officers and Gentlemen.

Paul Cook had a duty to conduct a clean Campaign. Paul Cook had a duty to make sure his subordinates conducted a clean campaign. It was his duty as an Officer and Gentleman to  publicly address and make sure that he did not support the political conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman by others in his camp.

Mr. Cook owes not only Gregg Imus a sincere and public apology for his unbecoming conduct but his constituents. You do not conduct a dirty rotten campaign like that and then claim that you are an honorable man without some sort of penance and apology to all those effected by such conduct.

There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty. Not everyone is or can be expected to meet unrealistically high moral standards, but there is a limit of tolerance based on customs of the service and military necessity below which the personal standards of an officer… cannot fall without seriously compromising the person’s standing as an officer. You have gone below those standards.

Dishonesty, unfair dealings, injustice, indecorum come to mind as Mr. Cook not only has failed to act as a Gentleman but he has  acted in such a cruel and unusual manner as to suggest that he may well lack what it takes to be a fair representative of all the people of this district.

Mr. You owe all of us an apology for your conduct. You owe the Congress of the United States and apology for your lack of comity and decorum. You owe the Marine Corps Officer Corps an apology.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 133—Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman

“Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

Explanation.

(1) Gentleman. As used in this article, “gentleman” includes both male and female commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen.

(2) Nature of offense. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty. Not everyone is or can be expected to meet unrealistically high moral standards, but there is a limit of tolerance based on customs of the service and military necessity below which the personal standards of an officer, cadet, or midshipman cannot fall without seriously compromising the person’s standing as an officer, cadet, or midshipman or the person’s character as a gentleman. This article prohibits conduct by a commissioned officer, cadet or midshipman which, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is thus compromising. This article includes acts made punishable by any other article, provided these acts amount to conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Thus, a commissioned officer who steals property violates both this article and Article 121. Whenever the offense charged is the same as a specific offense set forth in this Manual, the elements of proof are the same as those set forth in the paragraph which treats that specific offense, with the additional requirement that the act or omission constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

(3) Examples of offenses. Instances of violation of this article include knowingly making a false official statement; dishonorable failure to pay a debt; cheating on an exam; opening and reading a letter of another without authority; using insulting or defamatory language to another officer in that officer’s presence or about that officer to other military persons; being drunk and disorderly in a public place; public association with known prostitutes; committing or attempting to commit a crime involving moral turpitude; and failing without good cause to support the officer’s family.

Lesser included offense.

Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment .

Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for a period not in excess of that authorized for the most analogous (similar) offense for which a punishment is prescribed in this Manual, or, if none is prescribed, for 1 year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    Print       Email

About the author

Dan OBrien

Publisher

Cactus Thorns has been online in one form or the other since 2001. What started as a personal blog documenting the corruption and lack of Due Process of the 29 Palms Community Development Department has turned into over these many years into a hugely popular Independent Alternative News Media Outlet. We have partnered with other media including The Desert Star Weekly, Joshua Tree Star, other blogs, indie media and an incredible staff of volunteer Reporters, Commentators and Opinion Makers to create one of the most read, honest and dependable alternative to the Local traditional Media services in the country. Thanks to you the reader we are in the 5% of most read sites in the World.

7 Comments

  1. Paparrazi Paparrazi says:

    Dan, trying to understand here. Cook is currently a reserve and thus considered active or commissioned? Therefore he is still required to uphold the standards of an officer?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

      Can Retired Officers be Court-Martialed?
      Surprisingly, yes they can.

      Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, one of the many activities deemed punishable by court-martial is "contempt toward officials." This code of laws applies not just to active-duty officers but to retired ones, too. It's right there in Article 2, Section (a) (5): Persons subject to the UCMJ include "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."

      The key phrase is "entitled to pay." If you resign from the military, and thus give up all retirement pay and benefits, you're free from the clutches of military law. But if you retire and thus keep getting paid 50 percent to 75 percent of your peak active-duty salary (plus cost-of-living adjustments pegged to the consumer price index), you're still in the cage. (Many retirees learned this the hard way, when they were called back into service in Iraq.)

      Any commissioned officer [and, under Article 2, this includes any retired 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 Transportation [!], or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [Italics and exclamation mark added.]

      The military's Manual for Courts-Martial, the implementing document for the UCMJ, could be read as strengthening Rumsfeld's case against his critics, in two ways. First, in its elaboration of Article 88, the manual states:

      It is immaterial whether the [contemptuous] words are used against the official in an official or private capacity.

      In short, it's no defense for a retired general to say, "I'm just speaking as a private citizen."

      A candidate for office must be given the same respect and consideration.

      Source:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2006/04/could_rumsfeld_courtmartial_the_retired_generals.html

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CHwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loc.gov%2Frr%2Ffrd%2FMilitary_Law%2FMilitary_Law_Review%2Fpdf-files%2F175-03-2003.pdf&ei=yOGiUIvDDIao9gTVu4D4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHyj-_3xh0Lhl-RpFsMwNMA8QJPgA&sig2=XB9b5DYMtGN_puWN7PChBQ

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
      • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

        Ain't going to happen. I can't think of any retired officer ever being brought before a military court for anything.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
        • Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

          Billy Mitchell for one

          This in the papers today:

          Could Petraeus Face a Court-Martial? | TIME.com

          U.S. military officers – even retired ones like former CIA director David Petraeus – can be brought up on charges of adultery under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

          “It’s not going to happen, but that’s what the Manual for Courts-Martial provides,” says Yale Law professor Eugene Fidell, a military-law scholar and former president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

          Maximum punishment of someone found guilty of adultery is a dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all benefits, including pensions, and imprisonment for up to a year, Fidell says. Petraeus is entitled to a pension of about $200,000 annually.

          via Could Petraeus Face a Court-Martial? | TIME.com.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
          • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

            Billy Michell was not retired when he was tried by court martial. I agree with the Yale professor.

            "It's not going to happen".

            I appreciate you correcting me about the UCMJ applicability to retired officers but it has never happened and I do not see it ever happening.

            When and if retired Colonel West(R) gets court martialed for his outrageous remarks about members of congress as well as President Obama then I might see it happening to others until then.....

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  2. Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

    Hi Papa,

    Paul Cook is a retired Marine Corps Colonel. He is neither active or reserve. I am unaware of any conduct on his part that would be considered detrimental to the Corps or any organization he has ever belonged to or served in or for.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  3. Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

    Dan,

    Has there been a finding as to who did the damage to the Imus signs? Could it have been democrats, or independents, or lunatic fringe religious zealots?

    Who knows who did the damage but to assume that the damage was done by Cook supporters is a leap of faith at this point that is not supported by any factual investigation that I am aware of.

    Paul Cook is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice anymore than you are for your prior service.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

You might also like...

2720_62641440185_5719379_n

Earth Day Clean-Up Section Section 33!

Read More →
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
UA-9539515-1 e0a5d0bb00574423a5afb96d6b854248