Well...pull out
A Few Good Men, and listen to Jack Nicolson's speech near the end....
You
do realize that the whole point of that speech was that Jack Nicholson's character was
wrong and
deranged for thinking that military service equals carte blanche to do whatever he wants, right? And that that movie ends with Nicholson being arrested and brought to justice for his crimes?
The point of the speech was that the character of Jessep lived in the harsh world of reality, while the young (and very protected) character of Kaffee lived in a fantasy world.
No, the point of that scene, and of the entire film/play -- remember,
A Few Good Men was written by uber-liberal Aaron Sorkin -- was that Jessep was power-mad and deluded, and believed that his military service gave him carte blanche to violate the law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and to flout the authority of the military courts. He imagined himself some sort of necessary "rough men" doing "dirty work" that no one else could do to protect civilization, and therefore believed that that gave him license to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. He was, in short, a narcissistic criminal.
And while we did see Jessep being arrested, what was Navy JAG really going to charge Jessep with anyway? Accessory to involuntary manslaughter and perjury under oath,
He could easily be charged with abetting a violation of Article 128 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice:
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; or
(2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts grievous bodily harm with or without a weapon;
is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
By ordering the code red, he also ordered a violation of
Article 13 and
Article 15. Article 15, in particular, spells out what kinds of non-judicial punishments an officer may administer, and assault is nowhere on the list.
By helping to cover up the "code red" attack on Santiago, Jessep also violated
Article 78, becoming an accessory to assault. The initial order also constitutes a violation of
Article 81, conspiracy to violate the Uniform Code. He also violated
Article 93 (cruelty or maltreatment of persons under his command),
Article 98 (non-compliance with UCMJ's punitive procedures), and
Article 107 (false official statements).
The code red also constituted a violation of
Article 118, as it states clearly that:
Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he--
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.
So even though there's no intent to kill, it is still murder under Clause 2 of Article 118. It may also constituted a violation of
Article 119 under Section B2.
The code red is also a rather obvious violation of
Section 124 (maiming).
And, of course, the code red order constitutes a violation of
Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) and
Article 134 (disorder to the prejudice of good order and discipline, conduct bringing discredit upon the armed forces).
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline!
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Jessep's a lunatic. He's going to claim that the words "honor" and "loyalty" mean anything to him when he ordered the illegal assault of a man under his own command, leading to that man's
death? He's a traitor to the men under his command.
