Privacy Policy
Home | Money | Entertainment | Links | Advertise | Search | Cartoons | Contact | Shop December 02, 2008
Web
NewsMax.com
Powered by
 
Rumsfeld Defends War Commander
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Thursday, Feb. 6, 2002
Recent comments by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about an ongoing investigation by the DoD Inspector General into allegations of abuse of office by Central Command chief, Gen. Tommy Franks are stirring controversy in legal circles about maintaining the appearance of the independence of the Pentagon watchdog from command influence at the highest level.

“There isn’t a chance in the world that it will have any possible interference with his role as the combatant commander in the Central Command,” Rumsfeld said in response to press queries about the investigation.

Rumsfeld’s strong defense of General Franks, which has appeared to some to pre-judge the nature and seriousness of any discipline potentially arising from the allegations, brought comments like this from Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington lawyer specializing in military cases:

“In a situation like this, where there is a prospect of disciplinary action, circumspection is always the better part of valor,” Fidell told the New YorkTimes.

According to the Times report, a source familiar with the investigation revealed the allegations include that Franks’s wife sat in on briefings involving classified material, a female soldier was detailed to assist the commander’s wife on a personal basis, and an unauthorized military bodyguard was assigned to protect his wife. Also reportedly under investigation: if the government was reimbursed for Mrs. Franks’s travel aboard military aircraft.

The Inspector General Act provides that the Secretary of Defense may not “prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation…”

At his confirmation hearings in July 2001, a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee asked then Inspector General nominee Joseph E. Schmitz about his view of the relationship between the IG and the Secretary of Defense with regard to audits and investigations, in light of the independence of his agency as dictated by the Act.

“I would attempt to establish a strong and constructive working relationship with the Secretary and other senior officials without in any way compromising the independence and integrity of audits and investigations conducted by the Office of the Inspector General,” Schmitz answered.

“I believe that the DoD Inspector General bears an obligation to keep both the Secretary of Defense and Congress fully and currently informed on significant problems in Defense programs, the need for corrective action, and the status of such action,” Schmitz added.

But according to published reports, Rumsfeld said that it was Gen. Franks – not the Inspector General -- who initially informed him of the inquiry.

Also according to published reports, it was a junior officer member of the Central Command that first brought the allegations to the attention of the IG.

In today’s ethics conscious military, by regulation, “Anyone, whether uniformed or civilian, who witnesses what he or she believes to be a violation of ethical standards and/or the law, including but not limited to fraud, waste, or abuse of authority, potential leaks of classified information, or potential acts of terrorism, should report such conduct through the chain of command or either directly to his or her respective service Inspector General or directly to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense Hotline.”

Under government rules any and all such allegations must be checked out.

Tough Regulations

Under a policy outlined in a 1997 Department of Defense directive, “the use of DoD transportation resources is limited to official DoD requirements.” Family members, the directive says, may not accompany officials “as a general rule,” but exceptions are made “where there is an unquestionably official function in which the family member is actually required to participate in an official capacity.”

Such uncompromising rules may be the underpinning rationale of sources that have revealed to the Times that some recommendation for disciplinary action will be forthcoming regarding Gen. Franks.

The travel issue once plagued Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White when he and his wife flew a government plane from Dallas to Colorado to spend the weekend in Aspen. While there the Whites signed papers relative to the sale of a home they owned in Aspen.

In the White case, also the subject of a Schmitz investigation, the questioned Aspen visit was between stops in Dallas, where White presided over an official ceremony, and Seattle, where he attended the Microsoft Army Leadership Conference.

In the final shakeout of that investigation, White reimbursed the government for his wife’s travel, as the directive required.

On perhaps the other end of the seriousness spectrum is the case of Maj. Gen. David Hale who in 1999, after an intense investigation, was referred to a pre-trial inquiry and eventually to a general court-martial, where Hale pleaded guilty to seven counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and one count of making a false official statement with intent to deceive.

As a sentence Hale was reprimanded, ordered to forfeit $12,000 in retirement pay and fined $10,000. Later before a special board, he was reduced to the rank of brigadier general on the Army’s retired list.

However, the Hale disposition was the result of a military trial – not the type of administrative “non-judicial” proceedings and procedures that most likely will mark the final disposition of any action against Franks.

Schmitz, an honor graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, just last month published a strong memo to his own troops, reminding them to avoid even the appearance of impropriety:

“These standards are best articulated in the standards of exemplary conduct Congress has prescribed for the Armed Forces: ‘All commanding officers and others in authority…are required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under this command…’”

Schmitz’s office has been silent as to the Franks investigation, commenting only that such an investigation is in progress.

Franks, 57, became Central Command chief in 2000 and has served as U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan. A native of Texas, he enlisted in the military in 1967, and after basic training was selected to attend officer candidate school. He is a combat veteran of Vietnam.

Home | Money | Entertainment | Links | Advertise | Search | Cartoons | Contact | Shop
All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com