A Washington Times editorial attacked federal Judge Virginia Phillips's decision striking down the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The Times argues that “Phillips demonstrated little evidence that she has any knowledge of the unique requirements of service in uniform.” But it's hard to take the Times' attempt to show superior knowledge about the military seriously when the Times apparently doesn't even know the name of the military's code of criminal laws, which the Times erroneously refers to as the “Universal Code of Military Justice.”

This code is actually called the “Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

The Times states:

The decision rested heavily on the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Texas sodomy law and established rights associated with the “autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” In applying this logic to the military, Judge Phillips demonstrated little evidence that she has any knowledge of the unique requirements of service in uniform. The military is not a vehicle for actualizing the “autonomy of self,” and restrictions on expression and activities are essential to the life of a serviceman. Judge Phillips noted that “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” “captures within its overreaching grasp such activities as private correspondence between servicemembers and their family members and friends, and conversations between servicemembers about their daily off-duty activities.” The judge seems to imply, wrongly, that being off duty is similar to being a civilian and that what troops do on their off time is not governed by the Universal Code of Military Justice. [emphasis added]

However, a Google search for “Universal Code of Military Justice” (in quotes) mainly pulls up hits for the “Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Indeed, the first hit for the search is the U.S. military's Web page for the Uniform Code of Military Justice: