Scheller's speech can be seen below:
In the video, he acknowledges the risks he took by criticizing his superiors. From my own part, I thought he was being courageous by speaking out. In the end, he did lose his career and his pension, just as he feared.
His case reminds of Billy Mitchell, who was the father of the USAF. The trouble started during a military exercise where he proved an airplane could sink a battleship.
***
Mitchell was concerned that the building of dreadnoughts was taking precious defense dollars away from military aviation. He was convinced that a force of anti-shipping airplanes could defend a coastline with more economy than a combination of coastal guns and naval vessels. A thousand bombers could be built at the same cost as one battleship, and could sink that battleship.[24] Mitchell infuriated the Navy by claiming he could sink ships "under war conditions", and boasted he could prove it if he were permitted to bomb captured German battleships.
The Navy reluctantly agreed to the demonstration after news leaked of its own tests. To counter Mitchell, the Navy had sunk the old battleship Indiana near Tangier Island, Virginia, on November 1, 1920, using its own airplanes. Daniels had hoped to squelch Mitchell by releasing a report on the results written by Captain William D. Leahy stating that, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs."[25] When the New-York Tribune revealed that the Navy's "tests" were done with dummy sand bombs and that the ship was actually sunk using high explosives placed on the ship, Congress introduced two resolutions urging new tests and backed the Navy into a corner.[26]
In the arrangements for the new tests, there was to be a news blackout until all data had been analyzed at which point only the official news report would be released; Mitchell felt that the Navy was going to bury the results. The Chief of the Air Corps attempted to have Mitchell dismissed a week before the tests began, reacting to Navy complaints about Mitchell's criticisms, but the new Secretary of War John W. Weeks backed down when it became apparent that Mitchell had widespread public and media support.[27]
***
Mitchell was later demoted and court-martialed.
***
The court found the truth or falsity of Mitchell's accusations to be immaterial to the charge and on December 17, 1925, found him "guilty of all specifications and of the charge". The court suspended him from active duty for five years without pay, which President Coolidge later reduced to half-pay.[57][4] The generals' ruling in the case wrote, "The Court is thus lenient because of the military record of the Accused during the World War."[58] MacArthur (who himself in 1951 was removed from duty for similar reasons) later said he had voted to acquit, and Fiorello La Guardia said that MacArthur's "not guilty" ballot had been found in the judges' anteroom.[59] MacArthur felt "that a senior officer should not be silenced for being at variance with his superiors in rank and with accepted doctrine."[50]
In 1958, Mitchell's son petitioned the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records to reverse his father's conviction. The Board recommended vacating the conviction, but USAF Secretary James H. Douglas Jr. refused on the grounds that while Mitchell's airpower views "have been vindicated," this did not "affect the propriety or impropriety" of Mitchell's insubordinate behavior.[60][61] According to Douglas, by remaining on active duty, Mitchell "was bound to accept the consequences imposed by his service responsibilities."[61]
Later life
Mitchell resigned instead on February 1, 1926, and spent the next decade writing and preaching air power to all who would listen.[4] However, his departure from the service sharply reduced his ability to influence military policy and public opinion.
...
On February 19, 1936, Mitchell died in New York City at Doctors Hospital of a coronary occlusion. He had been admitted to the hospital on January 28. He was 56 years old.[64]
***
Mitchell's uniform is now on display at the USAF museum.
In a similar of an Army officer named Howe, his defense asserted that:
***
2. Articles 88 and 133 are so vague and uncertain that they violate the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
***
Article 88 says:
That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.
(Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element:)
That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Article 133 says:
That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
That, in the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.[
No comments:
Post a Comment