Army Staff Officer Allegedly Under DoD IG Investigation For Disclosing Army Readiness To Iraqi Insurgents
The Fort Sam Houston Chief of Staff, Colonel Luke S. Green is allegedly under DoD Inspector General investigation for disclosing army combat readiness information, useful to the Iraqi insurgency.This comes as a surprise in that Colonel Green recently launched an investigation into an Army Specialist who was, with authorization, using government resources to engage in personal correspondence.
Senior army officers, if convicted by a court martial of espionage for releasing sensitive combat troop readiness information to the enemy, could be executed.
What You Can Do
If you have additional information related to Colonel Green's alleged criminal conduct or any other information which may be of interest to the DoD Inspector General, please contact them at this link: Click here
Only you can ensure that your officer corps is competently regulated. The clerk in the oval office is incompetent.
A reasonable fact finder could conclude that Green is biased, and his continued role in the investigation is improper. Further, once the improper conduct is set aside, arguably no reasonable fact finder could conclude any member of the Armed services at Ft. Hood in any court martial would receive fair, impartial treatment.
The test for implied bias is objective. Viewing the circumstances through the eyes of the public and focusing on the perception or appearance of fairness in the military justice system, we ask whether, despite a disclaimer of bias, most people in the same position as the court member would be prejudiced. We look to determine whether there is "too high a risk that the public will perceive" that the accused received less than a court composed of fair, impartial, equal members. [ 63 M.J. 129, Citations Omitted ]
The facts before us suggest a highly partisan agenda, without any reasonable relationship to military discipline.
Fabricated Charge
There is no credible link between an authorized communication related to a matter of fact, and an implied inference of disloyalty. This would presume that anyone who expresses a personal opinion related to scientific evidence is acting with disloyalty to the United States, President, and Constitution.
No where is there any clause within the oath of office that an enlisted member is required to disconnect their brain. Rather, the oath is simply to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Selective, Vindictive Prosecution For Exercising Constitutional Rights
Even if the charge were bonafide, it is a problem when Green acts as an investigator on a matter that is essentially the same as that he was involved, but not charged.
To support a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution, an accused has a "heavy burden" of showing that "others similarly situated" have not been charged, that "he has been singled out for prosecution," and that his "selection . . . for prosecution" was "invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights." [46 M.J. 454]
Green has yet to explain why he, as an officer assigned to Germany was able to comment on matters of public interest; while someone else was denied the same constitutional right.
Green has yet to credibly explain why his investigation is anything but an unlawful, vindictive retaliation against someone who simply raised a valid point.
Moreover, if we were to apply the (absurd) standard applied to the specialist, then we would have to examine Green's statement.
Green, by choosing to investigate and direct this vindictive attack on a service member for exercising their constructional rights, has opened the door to a full examination of all of Green's comments. The evidence is stunning. Green allegedly has made comments which directly support the Iraqi insurgency; and publicly comment on matters related to combat readiness and other matters related to war reserve material.
If the specialist is to be reviewed for comments made while engaging in permitted, authorized, and allowable use of government equipment, then so too must Green's statements be subject to similar examination.
The issue before us isn’t' whether Green has a right to speak, but whether Green's comments, when taken from the perspective of an insurgent in Iraq, substantially contributes to their war making ability. It is arguable that when Green made these public statements, he has substantially confirmed military readiness information that open sources, otherwise available to the insurgency, had not been able to confirm.
Green Assigned To Units Permitting Non-Official Use
As you review the information below, note closely: The public comments are from the same units where Green was assigned. Green cannot explain why, despite his assignment at various training units, personnel assigned to the same units were using computers for non-official communications. We can only conclude that the policy -- that of permitting soldiers to use government computers for non-official business -- is a practice that is pervasive through all units Green has been assigned. Despite the abundance of evidence showing that each unit Green has been assigned permits non-official use of government computers, is why Green and others specifically targeted this 9-11-related information.
Green was in a position of leadership, and had the ability to influence policy. Either:
Other Evidence On Non-Enforcement
(1) Germany
Let's review where Colonel Green was when he released the information that was of use to the Iraqi insurgency: He was in Germany. One of the problems Green has is his failure to explain why non-official use of computers at that location was no investigated and similarly disciplined. Consider this long line of evidence: Ref, the IP number is assigned to the 5th Army, where Green was assigned: Ref
Notice:
(2) Special Forces Commentary in Germany
Consider this line of evidence: Ref, from the 5th Signal Command at Ansbach.
Note the revelations related to the classified program SERE: Ref Green is unable to explain why there was no command "concern" about these disclosures related to ongoing, classified, and sensitive Special Forces training issues.
(3) German Unit Commenting On Terrorism
Notice this statement: Ref. The right hand side is the Ramstein Unit. Someone had to make editorial judgments about what to comment on; and whether those facts do or do not deserve a public comment; and whether those comments were or were not revelations of sensitive material.
The only answer is that Green is biased, has been directed to take action in one situation, and other situations have been ignored in an inconsistent matter. The inconsistency can be traced to one person: The Commander in Chief. Whether the Secretary of Defense personally knew of the pre-9-11 attacks is of interest.
These are reasonable issues related to matters of public interest. Green's problem is that his previous career assignments are directly linked with conduct whereby personnel assigned to those same units have substantially commented on other matters of public interests, used the computes for non official purposes, and Green cannot explain why either he, the commanders, or the Secretary of Defense took an interest in these other discipline "lapses."
The issue isn't whether this is misconduct. The issue is that Green is inconsistently applying the standards, and shifting attention away from his own public comments which substantially assisted the Iraqi insurgency.
(4) Army Procurement Office
Here's the same thing: Ref Personnel assigned to a program office, engaged in acquisition activity, using official government computers to make statements unrelated to official business. The evidence is clear:
(5) Fort Benning
Is it a violation to leave Fort Benning IP numbers on sites that raise questions about 9-11? Despite the DoD General Counsel having the power to ask that information be removed from the FAS website in re shoulder=fired-missile defenses, the Army and Secretary of Defense have done nothing to remove this information: Ref
The only reasonable answer is:
A. There are two standards on whether information, communication, or conduct is or is not sanctioned;
B. Some speech, that is otherwise not punished, is wholly inconsistent with the Army's claim that the computer are only used for official reasons; rather, the evidence clearly demonstrates the opposite: Non-official use of computers is rewarded, not punished, and otherwise not enforced.
C. Other speech, based solely on content, is sanctioned.
D. Where there is a clear, established link between a discussion on 9-11, terrorism, or other matter related to the phony war on terror, DoD General Counsel has failed to show he has consistently directed that information be removed.
E. The only basis to target the information was not related to disincline, or a military need, but a desire to distance the Secretary of Deference and President from reasonable questions they have otherwise not satisfactorily answered; and this Congress has been too lazy to make adverse inferences.
F. DoD fails to demonstrate that they have a consistent policy related to insulating DoD information technology, websites, computers, and other things from discussion, commentary, access, and association with 9-11-related questions, issues, and commentary. The standards of enforcement are arbitrary, content-based, and solely related to an individual objective that is improper, not consistent applied, and at odds with actual practices.
G. Public evidence clearly undermines all DoD Statements related to their concerns with the specialist. 9-11-related information and discussion on terrorism events has been linked to the specific computes assigned to army units where Green is currently or has been formerly assigned. Green is not a credible investigator. The conduct at other units where he was assigned was not sanctioned; and the same level of discourse remains non-sanctioned to this day.
H. the Department of Defense has a public relations disaster. it is clear that this specialist is being unreasonably targeted where other personnel have been given a pass; and that the army claim that computers can only be used for official purposes is dubious. The evidence is clear, overwhelming, and if we had infinite time we could embark on an infinite journey to each of Colonel Green's bases and find more evidence that personnel were actively commenting on the very things which this specialist is accused.
I. The problem Colonel Green has is not simply that he's selectively investigating conduct that is otherwise not punishable; the Army has no credible record of having ever lawfully or reasonably punished people for using computers that access, comment on, or otherwise create a known-public association between DoD computers and public discourse related to 9-11.
J. The claim that the specialists' comments related to 9-11 are "disloyal" are absurd. Rather, Colonel Green's comments -- if that standard would apply -- would arguably be the basis to convict him for Article 134 violations, espionage, and revealing important classified, sensitive, and combat information related to the enemy.
The issue isn't whether the specialist did or didn't do something wrong. He did what all other military personnel continue to do: Think, use their brains.
On the other hand, Green's conduct is problematic. He's publicly commented no matters that substantially assisting the Iraqi insurgency, and confirm important national defense information to the enemy. Green is not a credible investigator: His prior conduct shows that he has for himself one set of standards related to information protection. The bases where he has been assigned show no evidence of having enforced, sanctioned, or prevented the use of the computers. Rather, Green needs to justify confidence to the Secretary of Defense, Congress and American public why his investigation should be believed; yet other evidence related to similar conduct is not investigated or otherwise rewarded through silent assent.
(6) Fort Leavenworth
Colonel Green was also assigned to Fort Leavenworth. Guess who was involved in a public discussion about public officials, conspiracies?
That's right: Fort Leavenworth. How does Colonel Green, or the Secretary of Defense explain this: Making comments about a government official can be construed to be disloyal, and inviting public contempt for a public official. What makes this conduct a problem is that the statements are linked to the same unit where Colonel Green was assigned: Fort Leavenworth.
The only reasonable conclusion is:
A. Green has embarked on an investigation that is arbitrary; wholly inconsistent with other conduct that matches what has been alleged here; and is not a genuine desire to enforce any standard of conduct; but is aimed at targeting those who make comments about certain topics;
B. The issue of loyalty is meaningless; and the Army has no track record of enforcing this dubious, arbitrary, and illusory standard; when Senator Clinton is discussed, the Army lets the discussions linked with Army Units go unchallenged; while those discussions that are related to matters which the President and Secretary of Defense have not satisfactorily explained are targeted.
C. The investigation is unreasonable, content based, and has one objective: To target the specialist for the content of his constitutionally protected communications; and his communication is substantially similar in form, content, and equipment use by those who have faced no sanctions.
D. The sole objective of the investigation is not to enforce discipline. If this were true, we would not see many other sites with the same types of discussions. Rather the sole objective is to target content, dissuade public commentary, and deny members of the Armed Services from engaging in Constitutionally protected speech.
E. The assertion that Colonel Green, the 5th Army at Fort Hood, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or the President are "concerned" about discipline are disingenuous. When other matters related to conspiracies are discussed -- conveniently matching the RNC smear-agenda -- and affirmatively linked with DoD assets, nothing happens.
The evidence is clear and overwhelming. This specialist is being targeted by the Army to distract attention from the issues the President, Secretary of Defense, and DoD officials have never credibly responded. Rather, the unanswered questions raise reasonable questions as to what basis this country has launched combat operations in Afghanistan; and to what extent the current combat operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq are known to be linked to illusory evidence, amounting to a war crime by the President, Secretary of Defense, and Colonel Green.
If Green considers it a “problem” to raise certain questions, why should anyone believe that Green has the mental capacity to review the full fact pattern? Competent investigations require investigators gather evidence with an open mind, not with an agenda as is clearly the case here.
Where is Green's explanation for the results of the Ft Leavenworth Article 88 investigation:
Even if the person at Fort Leavenworth is not an officer, but enlisted, they can be charged under Article 92 which prohibits contempt toward officials. Either way, there's a problem when Colonel Green and others are given a pass on statements that support and aid one agenda; while those who have a fair comment about another set of conditions are targeted.
All military personnel who are subject to this sham disciplinary system are reasonable in their questioning of the competence of their military commanders, and civilian leadership. Your commanders have failed to provide you with credible discipline; and their example would reasonably inspire distrust of them. It is reasonable for the public to comprehend why the military has to dig deep into the pool of reserves, rather than use a draft: The public, if they knew the truth about the abysmal leadership in the army, would never permit their sons and daughters to fight in an illegal war, nor be subject to the absurd leadership we've seen.
This leadership is reckless. It embarks on illegal wars; then it inconsistently enforces the standards. Rather than enforce the laws of war, this leadership targets those who dare to raise reasonable questions about the absurd, incomplete and dubious explanations. A reasonable person in the army would question the competency of their leadership; and have reasonable doubts about the mental capacity of leaders who are unable to comprehend the laws of war, much less recognize violations and prevent them.
The core problem is a training and compliance problem. This lands squarely at the feet of the President. His example is absurd. The troops are not being given clear guidance. Rather, they are being ordered to engage in war crimes, and otherwise remain silent about material information that raises reasonable legal issues of war crimes. If the basis for war in either Afghanistan or Iraq is based on dubious evidence, then the issue isn't loyalty; the issue is war crimes.
This problem relates with the commanders and other senior offices like Green who know, or should know, that reasonable questions deserve answers. Yet, this Joint Staff and Civilian leadership casts those questions to the win. The problems of leadership is not solved by disciplining those who see reality; the way forward is to lawfully convene war crimes tribunals to impose discipline where it is most needed: At the top, in the White House, and directly at the heart and soul of the failed Joint staff.
America's problem is that rather than letting its leaders lead, it has left the contemplation and analysis to those who are on the ground, and best able to see that things are not adding up. The leadership, training, and supervisory problems are translating into abuse against those who dare to notice what is going on, and question what is not lawful, reasonable, nor consistent with the laws of war. Failed leaders incite more credible leaders within the lower ranks. War criminals will punish those who raise mattes of evidence, facts, and the law. This nation has permitted the absurdities of 9-11 to play themselves out. There have been grave breaches of the law, and the current combat operations are not supported by either evidence or a solid legal framework. The only check on this abuse of power is the very question this specialist asks, and to which he is being targeted.
Let us hope that his case winds its way to the Supreme Court, where the public will see what happens when reckless leadership in the American military fails to ask questions and ensure their orders are lawful, but they embark on dubious illegal campaigns to silence those who dare to use their God given talents.
It remains to be seen which, if any, facts or statements from the President are introduced into subsequent proceedings against Colonel Green. [United States v. Kirkpatrick, 33 M.J. 132 ]
Green has apparently failed to comply with the UCMJ in the investigation. [ 53 M.J. 459 "denial of a reasonable opportunity to secure material witnesses for use at the trial" ] Green has failed to:
A reasonable conclusion that any service member would ask, if the evidence behind the war was not solid, was to inquire whether the war was or was not legal; and whether the commander decisions were or were not lawful. The specialist on the other hand shows not signs of disloyalty, but merely comments on a matter of public interest raising reasonable questions. Green offers nothing to suggest that the specialist has not incited insurrection, nor has the specialist advocated the overthrow of those who may be war criminals.
In short, the accusations are absurd. Green's problem is that he has substantially commented on similar matters, yet he would ask the public to believe that he is a credible independent investigator. This is absurd.
Investigating Officer Has Bias
One test of bias is whether the investigating officer has engaged in alleged misconduct which has otherwise not been sanctioned, but is the subject of the current inquiry.
Green's comments allegedly under DoD IG investigation related to his revelations, and failure to deny the operational readiness and combat deficiencies which were otherwise not known, and not publicly available.
These revelations and commentary have direct bearing under the UCMJ, raising the prospect of a bad conduct discharge, and possible violation of the Article 134.
Colonel Green was previously assigned to the 5th Army HQ staff in Germany, and was a distinguished military alumni of Jackson State University.
Perhaps next time Colonel Green wants to use his geography major, he'll notice that he lives in the United States. It's not nice to have two standards on whether army personnel are or are not held accountable for their public statements.
Green has yet to explain why Major Cleveland, also assigned to Ft. Hood, was permitted to make comments calling for American Newspaper Journalists personal information to be posted. Ref
It appears Green's idea of "loyalty" is for field grade officers to target those who discuss illegal activity. Judge Taylor Diggs ruled the government cannot claim a state secrets privilege over information which Major Cleveland otherwise warranted posting personal information.
Here is the information stating it is a problem for Colonel Green to have disclosed the army combat-readiness information to Iraqi insurgents.
Blogs, or web logs, posted to
public websites are increasingly
used by military personnel as
personal journals. Commanders
shall ensure subordinates are
aware that, in accordance with
DoD directive 5230.9, clearance
of DoD information for public
release, and the joint ethics
regulation (DoD 5500.7-r),
personal blogs (i.e., those not
having DoD sponsorship and
purpose) may not be
created/maintained during normal
duty hours and may not contain
information on military
activities that is not available
to the general public. Such
information includes comments on
daily military activities and
operations, unit morale, results
of operations, status of
equipment, and other information
that may be beneficial to
adversaries.Ref
Contrary to Green's assertions, this information had not been publicly confirmed or denied:
Col. Luke Green, chief of staff
of the Fifth U.S. Army, said
Baugher’s complaint emphasizes
the short training schedule part-
time and reserve units have to
become combat ready.Ref
Green has revealed key, sensitive, and valuable information to the Iraqi insurgency:
Green recently launched a laughable investigation into a highly decorated Army combat specialist. The specialist had been authorized to use the computer, and had for an extended period of time been using the government resources with permission.
The specialist was clearly making private, non-official statements of personal opinion.
Green has failed to demonstrate that the specialist comments violate any of the standards of conduct. Rather, the specialist's statements are wholly consistent with his long-standing, authorized use of the government computer.
As you can see below, making personal comments about a matter of public interest, and in no way saying that the comments were official policy, is wholly consistent with the DoD Standards of Ethics training:
It is permissible for a specialist to use official government computers when that activity
1. Does not adversely affect the performance of official duties.
2. Is of reasonable duration and frequency and when possible are made on personal time
3. Serves a legitimate public interest (like keeping employees at their workstations, improving morale, enhancing professional skills)
4. Does not reflect adversely on DOD.
5. Does not overburden the system or create significant additional cost and, in the case of long distance, the use cannot create any additional cost to the Government.
Green provides nothing to justify confidence that the specialist has engaged in any wrong doing. Rather, each of the standards, when contrasted with Green's conduct, raises substantial questions:
A. Despite being tasked with an investigation, Green does not appear to be able to independently investigate a standard of conduct he has allegedly violated;
B. Green has offered no information to demonstrate that the specialists' authorized use of the computer adversely affected the specialists’ performance of official duties.
C. Despite the authorization, Green has failed to show that the specialists’ use of the government computer was either unreasonable or frequent. Rather, Green has failed to show that the computer was or was not used outside what the specialist had a reasonable expectation would be permitted; and
D. Green offers nothing to show that the specialist had been counseled, admonished, or otherwise warned that the previously well known communication was unauthorized, or that there had been a change in policy.
There are two standards within the Army: One for army officers who allegedly reveal to the enemy combat-readiness data; and a second standard for army specialists who engage in authorized use of government resources.
The specialist's use of the computer serves a legitimate public interest:
A. Demonstrates that there are people inside the department of defense who are able to evaluate complex situations, and raise reason lines of inquiry;
B. Sends a clear signal that there are rational, competent, and coherent military personnel who are able to comment on matters of public interest;
C. Substantially adds to the public confidence in the military that there are rational, coherent, and competent people within the military who are able to carefully analyze complex problems;
D. Sends a clear signal to the public that there are military personnel in the armed forces who are able to distill complex fact patterns and rationally analyze that information to arrive at informed judgments.
Each of the above matters are substantial benefits to the military and tends to substantially increase public confidence, and reflects great credit upon the United States Armed forces.
On the other hand, Colonel Green's comments related to US combat effectiveness does the opposite:
Rather, it is clear that Colonel Cleveland's approach to business:
1. Does adversely affect public confidence that Colonel Green can independently act;
2. Raises substantial questions whether Colonel Green is acting in the interests of the army, or has with another motive to dissuade public commentary on matters related to legitimate matters of public interest.
Green's investigation is a waste of time, resources, and fails to demonstrate the military is serious about consistently investigating and enforcing standards of conduct consistently. Despite allegations of espionage against a senior officer, DoD unreasonably spends scarce resources stifling reasonable troop comments related to matters clearly unrelated to the mission in Iraq. The President recently confirmed there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq. Green has yet to explain why one set of events, unrelated to the combat mission in Iraq can be construed to imply an official position on that non-combat event.
These are grave matters. There is potential criminal liability for espionage in releasing and confirming sensitive information related to US troops. Green cannot credibly demonstrate that he is independent, not above question. Rather, Green's conduct brings discredit upon himself, FT. Hood Command Authority, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America.
It is reasonable to conclude the following:
The investigation into the specialist has one objective: To put military personnel on the defensive. Rather, the real purpose is clear: This White House and DoJ Staff know that military personnel have evidence related to illegal activity.
There is no lawful way that the White House, DoD, or the DOJ staff can credibly stifle discussion within the military of evidence which may be related to war crimes, misstatements to Congress, or other evidence related to unlawful appropriations based on unreliable investigations.
As the specialist has well stated: These are important issues which need to be reviewed. This Congress, rather than provide the leadership to ask the right questions, is leaving the troops out to dry.
When the President violates the laws and fails to ensure discipline within the ranks, it is the responsibility of Congress to provide the leadership. When the troops see that officers like Colonel Green are unable to credibly conduct investigations, the troops know that Congress has failed to timely resolve the discipline, training, and ethics problems within the Department of Defense.
Illegal orders, poor supervision, and defective training on an illegal war are no excuse for the White House, DoD or DoJ to target those who are stating the obvious: The American leadership has failed to credibly exercise leadership, resolve simple issues, and otherwise make a credible case that combat operations are lawful.
Other Links
Ref Green's absurd investigation.
Ref How easy was it for Colonel Green to get his ethics certification?
Ref Ft. Hood Field Grade officer calls for NYT staff to be targeted. Major Cleveland's campaign fails: Judge Diggs fatally rebukes the likes of Cleveland for claiming the illegal conduct was protected as a secret.
Ref US government is known for targeting those who dare comment on public matters, then changing the evidence to fit the crime. How much evidence does Colonel Green plan to ignore or creatively twist to make this case?
posted by Constant @ 6:28 PM
<< Home