you've made it out to be. And it may not even be true.
I've searched Google News for "Charmaine Means" and only come up with three hits. "Mosul seize television" yields considerably more, but I was not able to find one that confirms the events described in the WSJ article you linked to. "Mosul seize television Means" doesn't turn up anything interesting, nor does "Mosul seize television Charmaine".
You argue that Major Charmaine Means was relieved for cause. I contend that this is exactly as it should be, and commend her for her decision, but not for the reasons you might expect.
The major was given a lawful order, and refused to obey it. She was relieved for cause immediately.
That's pretty simple, actually, and not some terrifying assault on free speech. Soldiers are expected to obey lawful orders, not debate them. The time for debate is before the orders are given - not after - and the article states there was a "contentious" meeting so there was debate before the order was given.
The major's decision not to obey the order might have been because it went against every grain of her being, personally and professionally. In my opinion the order to seize the television station should not have been given to an officer in the civil affairs branch (the article refers to the "public affairs office", but this is most likely civil affairs), but to regular marines or infantry. The civil affairs corps is expected to act as liaison between the citizens of an occupied country and the U.S. military, and they can't do that and occupy Iraqi television stations (like infantry) at the same time. The civil affairs corps does not enforce the king's will. Anything which interferes with the primary mission of the corps should be avoided. To do otherwise is to invite trouble. The major probably recognized this.
So she made the right decision for the corps, maybe for personal reasons, and I think the commanding general made a bad decision, failing to know his people, and asked her to carry out an order he should have known she would likely refuse (and should have professionally). She made her stand and was relieved, not being able to convince her superiors that her point of view was the most correct one.
In fact, I'll do better than that, and predict how it actually went down: the major didn't just "respectfully disagree", she violently disagreed - maybe said, "with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about" (this is pretty violent among the landed gentry) - and the general, to save face in front of his subordinates, told her to take care of it "personally" to show everyone he was still in command, and then relieved her when she didn't, as he knew she wouldn't, as "an example to others". I wouldn't be surprised if we later learn the order to "relieve" her was rescinded by someone who understands this.
This is is not a constitutional issue. Iraqis do not enjoy the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Would that they did. The war might never have been necessary if the Iraqis: were protected from jack-booted thugs kicking in doors in the middle of the night on whispered charges of "treason", "suspicion", or "conspiracy"; were not subject to "cruel and unusual punishment" (read: torture); had a free press.
At least the major refused the order when it was given to her, instead of hours later at the television station.
The real issue here is why the U.S. military is closing an Iraqi television station, and the answer to that is pretty simple too: to prevent it from being used as a pulpit from which Al-Jazeera can broadcast, without fear of retribution, incendiary remarks that would incite the locals to take up arms against American troops in the region (again) by someone like, I don't know, bin Laden. You're right about that, but you suggest that it would be merely embarrassing.
No. It would require the U.S. military to shoot its way to the coast (or Turkey) with weapons that would punch dozens of tiny little holes and some big ones in every Iraqi body in the way - be it man, woman, or child - and maybe killing thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Iraqis. I thought we were all happy that the shooting has, for the most part, stopped in Iraq.
I want civilian government in Iraq as soon as possible, and I want our soldiers, airmen, and marines out of there as soon as possible - all of them. And if muzzling Al-Jazeera, mouthpiece of fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East, is what it takes, I fully support it. Al-Jazeera will get the last laugh, surely. The U.S. military cannot occupy Iraq forever, and it can broadcast whatever it likes everywhere else.
-1 because you didn't find corroborating sources for your story, forcing me to attempt it (and fail), and because you have no perspective.
I am a disruptive technology.