From: "George Sherwood" 


"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news:44acf120{at}w3.nls.net...
> http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060706/2006-07-06T002812Z_01_N05368896_RTR
IDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-USA-OFFICER-DC.html
>
> "'The reasons (sic) why they are going after him for the things he said is
> because they want to muzzle him,' Seitz said."
>
> If that's the case, it's a dumb way to go about it.  They've made it
> global
> news.

He joined the Army and then refused to do what he swore he would do when he
joined.  Officer's have been charged under the contempt regulation before
also.  I would have to read the exact words he said to know why this is
being done in this case.  Of course the defense is putting out the muzzle
him line since it makes for good press.  Refusing to obey an order is cut
and dried.  It is more sensational to claim the muzzle him charge.  This
gets the media on their side.  From my point of view it probably would have
been better to just go after the missed movement charge.  It would make a
better case and give less for the press to jump on.

George

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5