Rolling Stone broke interview ground rules with McChrystal, military officials say

The page loaded.

I saw the pic.

I knew who the post author was.

Yup, it was the Rolling Stone for God’s sake.

I’m not so sure. When I first heard the story (admittedly, while on vacation and only heard bits and pieces as I was seriously out of the loop, and wanted it that way)the first thing I thought was, “Wonder if McCrystal really wanted out of this goat rope, and figured he could kill two birds with one stone?”. Since none of us have a pipeline inside the 3 and 4 star offices, I suspect no one will ever know.

A bottle of Johnny Walker Black????

Speaking as the General’s agent, you will need to seriously up that ante.

*note* he only just hired me…otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation “Maggie, should I give an interview to RS?” “Sir, that’s a bad idea.”

URR,
Not to put to fine a point on it, but you really should read ART88 again. The only two lines in the entire Rolling Stones Article that could be considered to be considered to fall under the article are these two:
“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh. “Who’s that?”

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: Bite Me?”

Ignoring the fact that it would be very hard to argue that either comment was, in fact contemptuous, especially given the background (rehearsing responses to possible questions (although it was probably meant that way)), from MCM description of ART88, “Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged.”

Kind of hard to argue that a conversation between a general and his staff rehearsing possible questions before a speech is anything less than private. Of course, it also might explain the comments about the RS reporter violating the ground rules.

Other comments about the NSA, Ambassedors, or others are not covered by ART88. So stupid, yes, but you would be real hard pressed to get a conviction for ART88. Being fired on the other hand, is much easier.

URR,
I will disagree. First, only the two lines about possible questions concerning the vice president is a possible ART88 offence. ART88 is limited to specific positions, or in the case of Congress, the specific organization. I can make contemptuous remarks about a specific Congressman, just not Congress as an institution. Anyone not listed specifically in ART88 is free game.

Internal deliberations of the staff would always be considered private unless it was specifically meant to be public. By your standard, every deliberation say, for performance ranking of personnel, would be public. Your statement that “If those “private” conversations had been seditious or mutinous…” is true but irrelevant. Private statements that are seditious or mutinous are prosecutable, where as contemptuous statements are not. Read the article.

Further, are the two statements contemptuous? Given the context, I am not sure you could make a legal case.

“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh. “Who’s that?”
How exactly does this qualify as being contemptuous? He is making a joke about the possibility of being asked a question, but does he show scorn or disrespect to the individual? That would be a pretty uphill battle in court.

Just because something was unacceptable behaviour does not mean that it is prosecutable behaviour. In this case, I believe you would have a difficult time prosecuting for ART88. I am not defending the staff or the general nor am I arguing that firing him was not the right action, it was. I am merely pointing out you would face a significant uphill battle to take any legal action. Being stupid or an “old dude trying to be hip” is not grounds for a Court Martial.

Half a bottle of Johnny Walker Red nearly killed me, alone in my room the DC Sheraton, after I out-processed from the Academy in 1965. Fortunately, it was all soon jettisoned.

URR,
Obviously we disagree on the meaning of private. From a legal standpoint, I believe there are numerous circumstance where a conversation between a commander and his staff would be considered private and joking while reheasing answers to possible questions to a speech in a hotel room in Paris is one of them. Perhaps not good leadership, but not criminal. Additionally, as the remarks appear to be intended to be a humerous referrence to the flap over the previous Chaosistan remarks, not an attack on the VP, I am not really sure you can consider them contemptuous unless you just don’t have a sense of humor. Was there ever a personal reference to the VP beyond his name? Any reference to his ability or his fitness for office? Any display of personal scorn or disdain? You could argue the jokes were in poor taste, but contemptuous? Given the context of the comments, historical precedent, the desire to avoid the appearance of a witch hunt, and the virtual impossibility to get a conviction, I doubt any GCMCA would want to touch it with a 10ft pole.

Firing him was the right action but not because something he did was criminal but because he was stupid or failed at trying to be hip. Wasting time on some witch hunt trying to prove that being stupid or un-hip is somehow also criminal is just compounding the error.

I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

After I read the article the only thought I had was, “He WANTED to get fired”.